measurement of mentoring program outcomes: a systematic
Post on 01-May-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
MEASUREMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM OUTCOMES:
A SYSTEMATIC MULTIPLE STUDIES REVIEW
by
Mark Douglas Morgan
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning
Boise State University
May 2020
© 2020
Mark Douglas Morgan
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE
DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS
of the thesis submitted by
Mark Douglas Morgan
Thesis Title: Measurement of Mentoring Program Outcomes: A Systematic Multiple
Studies Review
Date of Final Oral Examination: 05 March 2020
The following individuals read and discussed the thesis submitted by student Mark
Douglas Morgan and they evaluated their presentation and response to questions during
the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination.
Lisa Giacumo, Ph.D. Chair, Supervisory Committee
Anthony Marker, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee
Steve Villachica, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee
The final reading approval of the thesis was granted by Lisa Giacumo, Ph.D., Chair of the
Supervisory Committee. The thesis was approved by the Graduate College.
iv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research study was to investigate how mentoring is measured
and assessed in the workplace by reviewing and synthesizing qualitative, quantitative and
mixed methods studies that appear in the professional literature. Mentoring programs are
common practice in the workplace. The one-on-one nature of a formal mentoring
program creates outcomes that benefit the protégé throughout their career in three ways:
onboarding, retention at an organization, and career advancement. However, mentoring
programs are expensive, both in terms of direct monetary cost and the time it takes to
complete the tasks associated with mentoring, making measurement of outcomes critical
for organizations. The primary question of this study was: how do organizations assess
the outcomes of mentoring programs? There were three sub-questions that will provide
the details to the primary question: what are the assessed outcomes of mentoring
programs; what quantitative measures and scales do organizations use to assess
mentoring programs; how do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring programs?
The study was conducted using a systematic multiple studies review (MSR) to
answer the research questions. The researcher followed the seven steps of the MSR
process as outlined by Petticrew and Roberts (2006). The researcher used the systematic
process to narrow an initial search result of 4,795 articles down to the final twenty which
included qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research written between 2012 and
2018 about outcomes of participants in formal mentor programs in the business
environment.
v
The key results found during this study were that organizations have measured
mentor program outcomes by focusing on seven key themes: career resilience, career
success, employee engagement, mutual development, personal learning, protégé
satisfaction and professional exposure. Of those themes, the most measured outcome
themes by quantitative methods were career success, professional exposure and personal
learning. Qualitative assessment in the studies used in this MSR focused on career
success and mutual development. Fifteen of the seventeen qualitative studies in this MSR
measured outcomes of mentoring by survey of the protégé and/or mentor. The remaining
two qualitative studies measured outcomes by extant data. Both qualitative studies
assessed mentoring outcomes via interview. The mixed methods study used both
interview and survey.
The desired benefits and the expense of formal mentoring programs show the
importance of evaluating the outcomes. This MSR shows that mentoring can be evaluated
successfully using quantitative methods, especially by survey, and qualitatively,
especially by interview. When determining what to evaluate, an organization needs to
consider which outcomes to focus on then align their study to those specific themes, as
the studies in this MSR have modeled. Rather than focusing on only the quality of the
mentoring experience or satisfaction with mentoring, evaluation should focus tying the
mentoring experience to outcomes like job satisfaction, level of employee engagement,
and adjustment to new job environments to show the organizational impact of a formal
mentor program.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...............1
1.1 Definition of Mentoring .....................................................................................1
1.2 Mentoring Outcomes .........................................................................................2
1.2.1 Outcomes for Participants ...................................................................2
1.2.2 Outcomes for Organizations ...............................................................3
1.3 Popularity of Mentoring .....................................................................................4
1.4 Human Performance Technology and Mentoring ..............................................4
1.4.1 Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) ..................................................5
1.4.2 HPT Trends Aligned with Mentoring Interventions ...........................6
1.5 Mentoring Measurements and Expectations ......................................................8
1.5.1 Problems Measuring Outcomes and Expectations ..............................9
1.6 Research Purpose .............................................................................................10
1.7 Key Terms ........................................................................................................11
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................13
2.1 Step 1: Search for Articles ...............................................................................15
2.2 Step 2: Complete Initial Include/Exclude Decisions .......................................18
vii
2.3 Step 3: Implement Assessment Protocol..........................................................20
2.4 Step 4: Complete Final Include/Exclude Decisions Based on Protocol ..........22
2.5 Step 5: Document Data from Articles ..............................................................22
2.6 Step 6: Synthesize Data ...................................................................................24
2.6.1 Reducing raw data.............................................................................25
2.6.2 Identify subsample themes and compare themes ..............................25
2.6.3 Create codes ......................................................................................25
2.6.4 Determine reliability of codes ...........................................................25
2.7 Step 7: Write Report ........................................................................................27
CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................30
3.1 Research Question 1a: What are the assessed outcomes of mentoring
programs? ...............................................................................................................30
3.2 Research Question 1b: What quantitative measures and scales do
organizations use to assess mentoring programs? .................................................35
3.2.1 Career Resilience ..............................................................................35
3.2.1 Career Success ..................................................................................39
3.2.3 Employee engagement ......................................................................46
3.2.4 Mutual development .........................................................................51
3.2.5 Personal learning ...............................................................................52
3.2.6 Protégé satisfaction ...........................................................................56
3.1.7 Professional exposure .......................................................................57
3.1.8 Scales used as more general measurements of mentoring ................60
3.3 Research Question 1c: How do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring
programs? ...............................................................................................................72
3.3.2 Career success ...................................................................................73
viii
3.3.3 Employee engagement ......................................................................74
3.3.4 Mutual development .........................................................................75
3.3.5 Personal learning ...............................................................................76
3.3.6 Protégé satisfaction ...........................................................................77
3.3.7 Professional exposure .......................................................................77
3.3.8 A summary of qualitative assessments .............................................78
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................79
4.1 RQ1a What are the assessed outcomes of mentoring programs? ....................79
4.1.1 Career Resilience ..............................................................................81
4.1.2 Career Success ..................................................................................81
4.1.3 Employee Engagement .....................................................................83
4.1.4 Personal Learning .............................................................................84
4.1.5 Protégé Satisfaction ..........................................................................85
4.1.6 Professional Exposure .......................................................................85
4.2 RQ1b What quantitative measures and scales do organizations use to assess
mentoring programs ...............................................................................................86
4.3 RQ1c how do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring programs? ..........87
4.4 Implications for organizations .........................................................................90
4.5 Implications for future research .......................................................................90
4.6 Limitations .......................................................................................................91
4.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................93
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................95
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................113
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................121
ix
APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................126
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Mentoring Outcomes That Affect the BEM ............................................... 5
Table 2 ATD Training Categories ........................................................................... 9
Table 3 List of Key Terms ..................................................................................... 12
Table 4 Article Search Databases .......................................................................... 16
Table 5 PICOC Search Criteria .............................................................................. 17
Table 6 Article search results ................................................................................. 19
Table 7 Included articles ........................................................................................ 20
Table 8 Included articles from 2012 - 2018 ........................................................... 21
Table 9 MMAT, part 1 ........................................................................................... 23
Table 10 Code Definitions ....................................................................................... 28
Table 11 Elements of outcomes measured by MSR studies .................................... 31
Table 12 Count of articles that measure the MSR codes ......................................... 34
Table 13 Quantitative articles and applied MSR codes ........................................... 36
Table 14 General Mentoring Measurement Scales .................................................. 62
Table 15 Qualitative articles and applied MSR Codes ............................................ 73
Table 16 Mentor benefits linked to outcomes .......................................................... 80
Table A1 Articles included in study ....................................................................... 114
Table B1 MMAT Quantitative studies ................................................................... 122
Table B2 MMAT Qualitative studies ..................................................................... 125
xi
Table B3 MMAT Mixed Studies ............................................................................ 125
Table C1 Original Coding ...................................................................................... 127
Table C2 Final coding ............................................................................................ 133
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Four Stages of Mentoring by Kram (1983)................................................. 1
Figure 2 Multiple Studies Review Process.............................................................. 14
1
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.1 Definition of Mentoring
Mentoring programs are common practice in the workplace. A formal mentor
relationship is between a mentor and protégé, where the mentor is usually more
experienced and knowledgeable, and responsible for the career development of the
protégé (Chen, Giacumo, & Sequinot-Cruz, 2017; Weinberg & Lankau, 2011; Wu,
Turban, & Cheung, 2012). There are four stages of the mentoring relationship (Kram K. ,
1983), which unfold over a period of time, as outlined in Figure 1. During these four
stages, mentors support the protégé’s growth both professionally and psychologically
(Logan, 2009).
Figure 1 Four Stages of Mentoring by Kram (1983)
Initiation
•Protégé idolizes the mentor
•Mentor provides support and guidance
Cultivation
•Mentor helps protégé grow through challenging work
•Interpersonal bond becomes strong
Separation
•Protégé moves to be independent
•Mentor lets go
•May create anxiety as relationship changes
Redefinition
•Mentor and protégé become peers
2
1.2 Mentoring Outcomes
1.2.1 Outcomes for Participants
The one-on-one nature of a formal mentoring program creates outcomes that
benefit the protégé throughout their career in three ways: onboarding, retention at an
organization, and career advancement. These outcomes contribute to increased individual
performance, which impacts the entire organization. The paragraphs below are a
discussion of the use of mentoring during the various career stages.
During the socialization and onboarding at a job, the mentoring process can help a
new employee become familiar with co-workers, organizational culture, processes,
procedures, and tools (Beecroft, Santner, Lacy, Kunzman, & Dorey, 2006; Anakwe &
Greenhaus, 1999). Being new to an organization creates a lot of anxiety and uncertainty,
which can cause new employees to leave organizations if they get overwhelmed (Fox,
2010). Having a mentor while starting a new job can help protégés find their
organizational identity and provide the protégés a way to grow self-confidence and
effectiveness on the job (Weinberg & Lankau, 2011). A mentor can guide the protégé,
ensuring that they can effectively use company resources, including how to submit
expenses, who to talk to for office supplies, or how to book a conference room (Dunham-
Taylor, Lynn, Moore, McDaniel, & Walker, 2008).
Mentoring also can impact experienced employee engagement (Robinson,
Annear, & Lea, 2014; Aylward, Odar, Kessler, Canter, & Roberts, 2012). Grossman
(2011) reported that the engagement levels of employees declined 30% from 2009 to
2010 and found that 64% of those who were dissatisfied were unhappy because they had
no opportunity for development. The outcome of non-engaged employees is that they
3
may harm the organization by acting against organizational culture (Cheng & Peng,
2016).
Tied to engagement, mentoring also can impact retention (Bourke, Waite, &
Wright, 2014; Boyd, Blue, & Im, 2017; D'Ambra & Andrews, 2014). For example, a
study by Fox (2010) showed that within a two-year period, 35% of new nurses who did
not have a mentor left the profession, while only 5% who did have mentors left the
profession. One reason that mentoring may aid in retention is that a mentor relationship
can provide personalized learning that matches a protégé’s needs (Klinge, 2015; Jyoti &
Sharma, 2017; Gong, Chen, & Yang, 2014).
Finally, mentoring can help employees advance their careers (Boyd et al., 2017;
Pololi et al., 2015). Mentors help protégés navigate the organization so that they contact
the right influences to prepare for new roles (Weinberg & Lankau, 2011). Smith-Ruig
(2014) writes that the career-related coaching was the most mentioned benefit by
protégés. The mentors also can advance their careers by participation in mentoring. The
responsibility of being a mentor helps align their work with the protégé with
organizational goals (Weinberg & Lankau, 2011).
1.2.2 Outcomes for Organizations
Organizations also expect to see benefits from mentoring programs in areas of
communication, knowledge, teamwork, and developing leaders. Mentoring programs
build communication channels (Bruce, Miller, & Zimmerman, 2015) and affect changes
in organizational culture by building relationships across areas where there may be
functional silos (Britton, 2015). The organization benefits when the mentor increases the
protégé’s strategic knowledge and enhances their performance (Chun, Sosik, & Yun,
4
2012; Kahle-Piasecki, 2011). Many studies mention mentoring improving teamwork and
building networks with colleagues (Bryant,et al., 2015; Mwangi, Zondervan, & Bascaran,
2017; Doucet, Andrews, Lauckner, Nasser, & Godden-Webster, 2012). Organizations can
build leaders because the mentors are practicing leadership behaviors in their relationship
with a protégé (Chun et al., 2012).
1.3 Popularity of Mentoring
Mentoring is extremely popular across organizations in all industries. Dunham-
Taylor et al. (2008) called mentoring “the single most influential way” to develop
employees because of “the benefits of recruitment, retention, and long-term maturation”
(p. 337). Tullman (2016) reported that 71% of Fortune 500 companies have formal
mentoring programs. In recent years, mentoring has become a top priority specifically for
the training and development profession (Bergelson, 2014) as well. While trainers deliver
content 42% of the time using stand and deliver methods (Freifeld, 2017), learning and
development managers are looking for alternate ways, including mentoring, to interact
with employees (Association for Talent Development, 2017).
1.4 Human Performance Technology and Mentoring
The Human Performance Technology (HPT) professional needs awareness of the
real outcomes of mentoring, because mentoring programs often fall to HPT professionals
to implement (Fox, 2010). An overall workplace performance plan can include classroom
training, mentoring, supervisor coaching and other interventions (Masalimova, Usak, &
Shaidullina, 2016; Buck, 2004). Nick et al. (2012) state that it takes “institutional
responsibility in order for the intended mentoring program to thrive” (p. 7). That includes
gaining administrative support, adding mentoring into promotion and Key Job
5
Accountabilities (KJAs), implementing training programs and providing time for
mentoring. The HPT professional influences those responsibilities. The next section looks
at formal mentoring as it fits into a commonly used root cause model, trends within HPT,
and how mentoring can support training.
1.4.1 Behavior Engineering Model (BEM)
Thomas Gilbert (2007) created the BEM as a model to describe the conditions
that lead to behaviors. The BEM helps HPT practitioners identify “barriers to individual
and organizational performance” (Chevalier, 2003, p. 8), or behavior gaps. Behavior gaps
are broken down into two categories: environmental support and a person’s repertory for
behavior. Table 1 is a model that links the mentoring outcomes, listed in the previous
section, to the behavior conditions.
Table 1 Mentoring Outcomes That Affect the BEM
Environmental
Support
Data Resources Incentives
Mentor can pass on
information to the
protégé (Chun et al.,
2012).
Mentor can share
resources to use and
introduce protégé to
resources (Anakwe &
Greenhaus, 1999).
Participation as a
mentor can be an
incentive (Weinberg &
Lankau, 2011).
Having a mentoring
program can be part of
the incentive for the
organization (Boyd et
al., 2017).
Person’s
repertory of
behavior
Knowledge Capacity Motivation
Mentor can be part of
a learning process to
reinforce learning that
matches the protégé’s
needs (Klinge, 2015) .
Mentor can help
shrink the gap
between capacity and
task by providing
additional support
(Weinberg & Lankau,
2011).
Mentor can provide
motivation to protégé
(Robinson et al.,
2014).
6
1.4.2 HPT Trends Aligned with Mentoring Interventions
Rothwell, Hohn, and King (2007) identified key trends within Human
Performance Technology. While more than ten years old, those same trends still affect
HPT. As with the BEM, formal mentoring can impact these trends positively, as
discussed below. The trends include the emergence of a knowledge-based economy, an
aging workforce, changing culture and ethnicity, employee retention, and Human
Resources departments having to be increasingly innovative.
1.4.2.1 Knowledge-based economy
The knowledge-based economy has been a topic of many articles and books over
the past twenty years (Foss, 2002; Harris & Ormond, 2018; Rossett, 2009) Albescu,
Pugna and Paraschive (2008) say, “knowledge [is] contained within huge volumes of
information and leveraging this value is increasingly important in the competitive
market” (p. 5 ). According to Sloman and Philpott (2006), Robert Reich, President
Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, stated that “employment in developed economies will
consist of … knowledge workers” (p. 242). With the emergence of a knowledge-based
economy, “it is important to create and maintain a positive culture to keep employees
engaged in the goals and objectives of the organization” (Rothwell et al., 2007, p.189).
This points to the potential mentoring outcomes of engagement and onboarding.
1.4.2.2 Aging workforce
Because the workforce is aging and knowledge and productivity within
organizations needs to be preserved, “establishing mentor programs that pair younger
workers with older workers can be effective at passing along necessary skills and
7
knowledge” (Rothwell et al., 2007, p. 191). These skills point to the outcomes of career
advancement for the younger employees and career engagement for both employees.
1.4.2.3 Changing culture and ethnicity
The changing culture and diverse ethnicity within the workforce can lead to
communication gaps and silos. Mentoring programs can be part of a strategy to promote
that “leaders in our organizations have the additional skills required to manage a remote
workforce, especially one from a different part of the world where time zones and
languages could add to the challenge” (Rothwell et al., 2007, p. 193). Mentoring for
culture and ethnicity impacts the employee engagement, not only for the leaders who are
being mentored, but also for their staff, who will be more effectively led.
1.4.2.4 Employee retention
Rothwell et al. (2007) state that workers are increasingly considering job changes.
Employee retention is a key priority. Mentoring helps HPT professionals “help their
organizations respond to the needs of their workforces. It might not be lava lamps and
beer that keeps (sic) your employees happy. Perhaps it’s flex-time, opportunities for
advancement and telecommuting” (Rothwell et al., 2007, p. 194). Mentoring, as one of
these strategies for retention, has an impact on the outcome of employee engagement.
1.4.2.5 Innovative Human Resources departments
Human Resources departments need to be increasingly innovative in providing
services. “Self-directed learning, group-based instruction, job rotation, mentoring, and
coaching programs all can be effective in the right circumstances (Rothwell & Sensenig,
1999). The HPT practitioners must be comfortable selecting and implementing a full
range of high-quality training and non-training solutions” (Rothwell et al., 2007, p. 199).
8
Meeting the needs of the workforce through flexibility impacts the outcome of employee
engagement.
1.4.2.6 Support of Training
An Association for Talent Development (ATD) survey (Association for Talent
Development, 2017) reported the topics for training completed across 299 organizations
in 2016. The results of this survey are in Table 2. Four of the training categories, 40% of
the total results, are supported by formal mentor programs. Those four categories, listed
below, are: managerial and supervisory; processes, procedures and business practices;
new employee orientation; and interpersonal skills.
1.5 Mentoring Measurements and Expectations
Measurement of mentoring programs to determine the outcomes, positive or
negative, is important for organizations. Any program, like mentoring, must be evaluated
to align with stakeholders’ needs and expectations (Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014).
Mentoring programs are expensive, both in terms of direct monetary cost and the time it
takes to complete the tasks associated with mentoring. In 2010, Fox (2010) reported that
an annual mentoring program for 200 nurses cost $291,000, which translates to $1,455
per protégé. As an example of time expenses, Murray (2001) states that it takes three
years to fully implement a mentoring program and see benefits. Those time expenses
include time away from other job responsibilities (Murray, 2001; Matusovich, Paretti,
McNair, & Hixson, 2014), time (months) to establish effective mentor/protégé
relationships (Murray, 2001), and time for program administration to match relationships
and assess needs (Murray, 2001). Mentoring programs require ongoing participation of
employees to serve as mentors (Weinberg & Lankau, 2011). Negative experiences will
9
reduce the popularity of the program and, therefore, reduce the number of people
available to make it
Table 2 ATD Training Categories
Rank Category of training Percentage of training
delivered
1 Managerial and Supervisory (aka leadership) 13.7%
2 Mandatory and compliance 10.8%
3 Process, Procedures and Business Practices 10.4%
4 Sales (not including product knowledge) 8.9%
5 New Employee Orientation 8.2%
6 Profession specific or industry specific 8.0%
7 Information technology and systems 7.9%
8 Interpersonal skills (e.g. teamwork and
communication)
7.8%
9 Executive development 6.9%
10 Customer Service 6.7%
11 Product Knowledge 6.0%
12 Basic Skills 2.9%
13 Other 1.8%
Total 100.00%
successful. An example of the negative impact of time spent mentoring is pointed out by
Hansford, Tennent, and Ehrich (2002), where overburdened mentors had declining sales
numbers.
1.5.1 Problems Measuring Outcomes and Expectations
Despite the promises of positive outcomes listed above, mentoring programs may
not live up to expectations (Blake-Beard, 2001; Eby & Lockwood, 2005, as cited by
Tummons, Kitchel, Gordon, 2014, p. 70). Efron, Winter, and Bressman (2012) include a
quote from a mentor program participant who states, “neither my mentor nor I were
10
completely sure what [was] expected of us during the program” (p. 341). Murray (2001)
writes that the protégé might not recognize the benefits of the relationship and may not
get promoted as quickly as they believe they should.
Many researchers have written that the outcomes of mentor programs are hard to
measure, and the actual outcomes of mentoring are difficult to determine. (Santoro et al.,
2010; Struyk & Haddaway, 2011; Chun et al., 2012; Ehrich, Hansford & Tennent, 2003).
Santoro et al. (2010) suggest that outcome data is cloudy as far as the best approach to
mentoring. Murray (2001) mentions that it is hard to quantify and measure leadership
“soft skills.” Struyk and Haddaway (2011) decided to avoid measuring impacts of the
program they were studying because it was too challenging. Chun et al. (2012) conclude
that “it remains unclear whether providing mentoring functions enhances positive
organizational outcomes” (p. 1072) based on conflicting findings from other studies.
These studies point out the importance of compiling information about successfully
measured mentor programs as a basis for success of future programs.
1.6 Research Purpose
The purpose of this research was to investigate how mentoring is measured and
assessed in the workplace by reviewing and synthesizing qualitative, quantitative and
mixed methods studies that appear in the professional literature. Many studies about
mentoring, including those in the Background Section, are case studies with conclusions
based on one situation and one study (Barthalus, 2015; Beltman & Schaeben, 2012).
Ehrich, Hansford, and Tennent conducted systematic studies in the 2000s that focused on
mentoring in various contexts, such as nursing, education and business, and then
extrapolated over other professions (Ehrich et al., 2003; Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennent,
11
2004; Hansford et al., 2002) The focus of their systematic studies is not on measurement,
but instead on “positive and negative outcomes” (Hansford et al. 2002, p. 107), “nature
and outcomes of mentoring” (Ehrich et al., 2004, p. 2) and “meaning and scope of
mentoring in medical contexts and its positive and negative outcomes for those involved”
(Ehrich et al., 2003, p. 2).
These previous studies show a gap in the literature focusing on mentor outcomes.
Measuring and assessing outcomes of mentoring programs is important to organizations
due to the direct and indirect costs involved, as discussed in the Background Section.
Therefore, this study will focus on measurement of mentoring programs and answer the
following research questions. The primary question is: how do organizations assess the
outcomes of mentoring programs? There are three sub-questions that will provide the
details to the primary question: what are the assessed outcomes of mentoring programs;
what quantitative measures and scales do organizations use to assess mentoring
programs; how do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring programs?
1.7 Key Terms
Table 3 lists key terms used in this document. Authors use different terms to mean
similar ideas. Table 3 defines the terms as used in this paper.
Chapter One discussed the purpose of mentoring in organizations. Next, it
discussed the outcomes of mentoring programs on individuals and on organization. After
that, the impact of mentoring tied to Human Performance Improvement (HPI), including
training, was discussed. Finally, based on all that information, Chapter One showed the
purpose of this study.
12
Table 3 List of Key Terms
Term Definition
Career function (of
mentoring)
“Those aspects of the [mentoring] relationship that primarily
enhance career advancement” (Kram, 1983, p. 614).
Coach An expert who provides guidance and feedback on a specific skill
or at critical moments (Coach, n.d., Clutterbuck, 2008, Ghefaili,
2003). In other words , a coach is concerned with a more narrow
performance gap than a mentor. Smith-Ruig (2014) state that
coaching can be seen as a “function” of mentoring.
Formal Mentoring
Program
“A structured, purposeful process for supporting career
advancement, professional growth or skill development” (Cowan,
2010) .
Informal mentoring A voluntary mentoring relationship that the mentor and protégé
enter by choice rather than created and monitored by the
organization (Allen & Eby, 2003; Lankau & Scandura, 2002).
Mentor A trusted advisor who provides assistance on broad concepts,
such as career or psychosocial development (Clutterbuck, 2008,
Kram, 1983, Mentor, n.d.) In other words, mentors sometimes act
as coaches, although coaching is a means to a broader outcome.
Mentoring “The activity of supporting and advising someone with less
experience to help them develop in their work.” (Mentoring, n.d.)
Protégé “Someone who is helped [or] taught… by an important or more
experienced person (Protégé, n.d.)” like a mentor.
Psychosocial
Function (of
mentoring)
“Those aspects of the relationship that primarily enhance sense
of competence, clarity of identity, and effectiveness…” (Kram,
1983, p. 614).
Next, Chapter Two describes the methodology of the multiple studies review
(MSR) used in this study, from the initial search of articles to the writing of the report.
Chapter Three discusses the findings of the research and how the data answered the
research questions. Chapter Four discusses the findings and implications of the findings
shown in Chapter Three.
13
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
This study used a systematic multiple studies review (MSR) to answer the
research questions listed in the previous chapter. Petticrew & Roberts (2006) described a
systematic multiple studies review as a literature review that:
Adhere closely to a set of scientific methods that explicitly aim to limit systematic
error (bias), mainly by attempting to identify, appraise and synthesize all relevant
studies (of whatever design) in order to answer a particular question (or set of
questions). In carrying out this task they set out their methods in advance, and in
detail, as one would for any piece of social research (p. 9).
The term “systematic” refers to how much structure is in the study (Okoli & Schabram,
2010).
This study followed a specific protocol, as outlined below. The MSR is used to
make sense of large amounts of information (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) and is of value
“when there is uncertainty about what the evidence on a particular topic shows: for
example when there’s uncertainty about the effectiveness of a particular intervention”
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p. 28). As stated earlier, there is uncertainty around the
outcomes of formal mentoring programs. Mulrow (1994) states that an MSR takes less
time and less money than a brand-new study.
An MSR uses quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods empirical studies as
the source of data rather than live subjects, surveys, observations or other data collection
14
methods. As stated above, the disadvantage of most studies around mentoring is that they
focus on a single case study and single outcome,
while an MSR looks across multiple cases to find
the trends (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005; Mertens
& Hesse-Biber, 2013): Each individual piece is
examined critically to determine whether it really
is part of the picture, and where to place it (if
anywhere) – and to find out how it fits with other
pieces (if at all). In the context of a systematic
review, this involves determining whether any of
the individual studies are affected by significant
bias, as this may affect the weight to place on
them when it comes to putting the whole picture
together. “This involves assessing whether the
study is representative of the wider population,
whether the numbers add up (for a quantitative
study), and whether the study was affected by
problems or other events that might affect your
interpretation of its results.” (Petticrew &
Roberts, 2006, p. 125).
This study followed the procedure outlined by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), one
of the most recent books about MSR in the Social Sciences. There are seven steps in the
process: search for articles, complete initial include/exclude decisions, implement
Figure 2 Multiple Studies Review Process
15
assessment protocol, complete final include/exclude decisions based on protocol,
document data from articles, synthesize data, and write report (Figure 2). The paragraphs
below describe each step in more detail.
2.1 Step 1: Search for Articles
This study searched for articles in multiple business journal databases as seen in
Table 4. These databases include research from around the world. A description of the
specific focus of each database is included in Table 4.
Adhering to a rigorous MSR methodology, this study used the same starting
search terms in every database. The search terms used were (mentor OR mentors OR
mentorship) AND formal AND (measurement* OR evaluat*) AND workplace AND
adult* NOT educ*. This search term is based on Petticrew and Roberts’ (2006)
Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Context (PICOC) criteria shown in
Table 5. The search terms used include the definitions as shown in Table 5. The study
resulted in 4,795 articles being found, as shown in Table 4.
Once all articles were found, all citation information (author, year, article title,
publication) was entered into Microsoft Excel and sorted alphabetically. Then duplicates
were removed to complete the finalized list of initial articles. The number of articles
remaining after duplicates were removed is shown in Table 6. Eighty-one percent of the
articles remaining after duplicates were removed were found from the Academic Search
Premier database.
16
Table 4 Article Search Databases
Database Description Initial search
numbers
ABI/Inform
Collection
“Includes important full‐ text journals and much
sought‐ after titles from the business press as
well as key trade publications, dissertations,
conference proceedings, and market reports—will
help today’s researchers resolve tomorrow’s
problems” (ProQuest, 2018a).
49
Academic Search
Premier
(EBSCO/HOST)
A “multidisciplinary research database …
provides acclaimed full-text journals, magazines
and other valuable resources” (EBSCO
Information Services, 2018a).
3605
Asian and
European
Business
Collection
“Provides information pertinent to the study of
business and finance topics across Asia and
Europe, including academic journals, newspapers,
newswires, and magazines” (ProQuest, 2018b).
49
Business Source
Premier
“The industry's most widely used business
research database … features full text and
searchable cited references for top journals
covering a variety of business disciplines”
(EBSCO Information Services, 2018b).
998
JSTOR A databased to “explore a wide range of scholarly
content through a powerful research and teaching
platform” by “collaborate with the academic
community to help libraries connect students and
faculty to vital content” (JSTOR, 2018).
18
LexisNexis Includes “legal, regulatory and business
information and analytics that help customers
increase productivity, improve decision-making
and outcomes, and advance the rule of law around
the world” (LexisNexis, 2018).
0
17
ProQuest Central “The largest single periodical resource available,
bringing together complete databases across all
major subject areas, including Business, Health
and Medical, Language and Literature, Social
Sciences, Education, Science and Technology, as
well as core titles in the Performing and Visual
Arts, History, Religion, Philosophy, and includes
thousands of full-text newspapers from around
the world” (ProQuest, 2018c).
76
Web of Science “The world’s leading scholarly literature in the
sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities and
examine proceedings of international
conferences, symposia, seminars, colloquia,
workshops, and conventions” (Web Of Science,
2018).
0
Total 4,795
Table 5 PICOC Search Criteria
Population Participants in mentor programs in the workplace
Intervention Mentoring programs, both formal and informal
Comparison Outcomes that are measured and assessed
Outcomes Quantitative data (e.g. promotions, number or mentor
relationships, advancement, better pay, employee engagement
surveys, better “work”)
Qualitative data (e.g. employee morale, employee confidence,
program “success”)
Mixed methods
Context Within the business environment; not social mentoring or
adult/student relationships
18
2.2 Step 2: Complete Initial Include/Exclude Decisions
After the finalized list of initial articles was created, the researcher considered
each article for inclusion or exclusion as data for the study based on a brief read of the
abstract, based on preliminary criteria. This initial assessment was simply to weed out
studies that were not relevant to the topic. The researcher did not make any judgement
about the validity of the study (e.g. the quality of the research methods), but only that the
topic studied matched the criteria. The initial assessment criteria included two criteria: 1)
the article is about a formal mentoring program in a workplace environment and 2) the
article includes a measurement of mentoring outcomes.
All articles were assessed based on these criteria, which reduced the number of
articles from 4,424 to 363. The most common reason that articles were removed from the
search numbers was because the content did not match our PICOC criteria, as outlined in
Table 5. The other common three reasons that articles were eliminated were that the
population was about youth or college students (1385), descriptions of a program rather
than outcomes (734), and discussions about commentary and theory (592). Table 7 shows
the totals at the conclusion of this sorting process. This brought the total included articles
down to 363. The researcher conducted two further sorts. First, the researcher categorized
the articles into business, medical or education settings (Table 7). Second, only studies
written between 2012 and 2018 were included in the results. This reduced the number of
studies to 143 (Table 8).
Next, after assessing the number of articles and the scope of the project, the
researcher narrowed the scope to articles about business (shown in Table 8), eliminating
the articles focused on medical and education work settings. The researcher focused on
19
the business environment and excluded the medical and education environments in order
to narrow in on the mentoring relationship without the additional factors of patient care
and educational goals. This reduced the number of articles to 45. The 45 articles set in the
business workplace were then screened one more time to ensure that they met the
requirements and the researcher eliminated an additional 22 articles based on the PICOC
criteria (Table 5), leaving him with the final 23 articles included in the study (Appendix
A).
Table 6 Article search results
Database Initial article results Article results after
duplicates removed
ABI/Inform Collection 49 49
Academic Search
Premier
(EBSCO/HOST)
3605 3605
Asian and European
Business Collection
49 0
Business Source
Premier
998 727
JSTOR 18 16
LexisNexis 0 0
ProQuest Central 76 27
Web of Science 0 0
Total 4795 4424
20
Table 7 Included articles
Subtotals Total
Database Included about
business
Included about
education
Included about
medical
Remaining
Included
articles
ABI/Inform
Collection
4 0 0 4
Academic
Search
Premier
(EBSCO/
HOST)
45 79 101 225
Business
Source
Premier
116 11 3 130
JSTOR 1 0 1 2
ProQuest
Central
2 0 0 2
Total 168 90 105 363
2.3 Step 3: Implement Assessment Protocol
The goal of this step was to determine the rubric to determine the studies that are
appropriate for the research. The researcher used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool
(MMAT) (Pluye et al., 2011). All the articles in the initial include/exclude file were read
and recorded on an additional worksheet based on the MMAT protocol. All studies were
evaluated on two criteria (Table 9):
21
Table 8 Included articles from 2012 - 2018
Subtotals Total
Database Included about
business
Included about
education
Included about
medical
Remaining
Included
articles
ABI/Inform
Collection
2 0 0 2
Academic
Search
Premier
(EBSCO/
HOST)
16 40 54 110
Business
Source
Premier
27 3 1 31
JSTOR 0 0 0 0
ProQuest
Central
0 0 0 0
Total 45 43 55 143
1) “Are there clear qualitative and quantitative research questions (or
objectives) or a clear mixed methods question (or objective)?” (Pluye et
al., 2011, p. 2), and
2) “Do the collected data … address the research question (objectives)?”
(Pluye et al., 2011, p. 2)
Then, additional criteria were applied based on the type of study (qualitative,
quantitative or mixed methods). The additional criteria are described in Step 4 below.
During this step, three articles were eliminated after further evaluation. McKevitt &
Davis (2014) and Perrone et al. (2016) were not about mentoring. ÖZcan & ÇAĞLar
(2013) was not understandable after translating from the original language.
22
2.4 Step 4: Complete Final Include/Exclude Decisions Based on Protocol
In Step 4, the researcher used the MMAT scoring protocol (Pluye et al., 2011) to
make the final determination of articles to include in the study. This assessment rubric is
a comparison of the number of criteria met to a minimum number. Each criterion was
evaluated as “Yes”, “No” or “Can’t Tell”. An article was included in the study if 80% of
the elements were evaluated as “Yes”. All the articles that met this minimum number of
criteria were added to the final include list of articles for the study shown in Appendix B.
2.5 Step 5: Document Data from Articles
More information from the articles on the final include/exclude list were documented in
an expanded worksheet in the researcher’s Excel sheet (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p.
121; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p. 165). The purpose of this information was not only
used to create the final report’s bibliography, but also to complete the methodology and
results data sections. The expanded data included study population, intervention details
and background, outcomes and measurements, type of study (qualitative, quantitative,
mixed methods), methods used to analyze data, and date of study. This final list is shown
in Appendix A.
23
Table 9 MMAT, part 1
Article details Screening questions
Citation Study Type S1. Are there
clear research
questions?
S2. Do the collected
data allow to address the
research questions?
Arora and
Rangnekar (2014)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Bach Ouerdian,
Malek, and Dali
(2018)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Cheng and Peng
(2016)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Deptula and
Williams (2017)
Qualitative Yes Yes
Farnese, Barbieri,
Bello, and Bartone
(2017)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Grima, Paillé,
Mejia, and
Prud'homme
(2014)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Holtbrügge and
Ambrosius (2015)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Janssen, Tahitu,
van Vuuren, and de
Jong (2018)
Qualitative Yes Yes
Koyuncu, Burke,
Alayoglu, and
Wolpin (2014)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Lyle and Smith
(2014)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Makokha et al.
(2014)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Naim and Lenka
(2017)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Rogers, Luksyte,
and Spitzmuller
(2016)
Quantitative Yes Yes
24
Rueywei, Shih-
Ying, and Min-
Lang (2014)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Smith-Jentsch,
Fullick, and Bencaz
(2012)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Srivastava (2015) Mixed Yes Yes
Srivastava and
Thakur (2013)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Welsh and Dixon
(2016)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Zhenyuan,
Huiping, Xi, and
Yongjia (2016)
Quantitative Yes Yes
Zhuang, Wu, and
Wen (2013)
Quantitative Yes Yes
2.6 Step 6: Synthesize Data
After documenting the data from the articles, the researcher synthesized and
coded the data. “Coding involves identifying and marking not only concrete things but
also ideas and meanings” (LeCompte & Schensul, 2013, p. 148). Through the coding, the
researcher looked for independent variables, described by LeCompte and Schensul
(2013) as “possible explanations for the outcomes” (p. 148) and dependent variables,
described by LeCompte and Schensul (2013) as the outcomes. Determining the codes in
data-driven studies, like this study, involves “five steps to inductively create codes for a
codebook: 1) reduce raw information; 2) identify subsample themes; 3) compare themes
across subsamples; 4) create codes; and 5) determine reliability of codes” (DeCuir-
Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011, p. 141). The codebook was set up following the
process outlined by (MacQueen, McLellan, Kay, & Milstein, 1998) which included
defining the variable, showing an example of when to use and when not to use.
25
2.6.1 Reducing raw data
The first step was to read through the article and identify the outcomes and
results. The researcher focused on the results and conclusions sections of the articles to
document the actual results. The researcher recorded the relevant quotes from the articles
as raw data in an Excel sheet. This resulted in 241 lines of raw data points.
2.6.2 Identify subsample themes and compare themes
Using data from the articles, the researcher looked for themes in each article. The
researcher then compared themes across articles to find commonalities to identify main
themes. These themes were further defined in the next step.
2.6.3 Create codes
From the themes, the researcher created codes. Originally, the codes were defined
by starting with the two functions of mentoring, career functions and psychosocial
functions, outlined by Kram (1983). This article is cited by more than 2,700 other reports,
including 6 of the 21 articles in this study. 12 of the 21 studies refer to the career and
psychosocial functions originally outlined in Kram’s (1983) article. After defining those
two codes, the researcher developed 30 sub-codes and organized them under the two
mentor functions. These codes were based on information in the articles and defined
using information from the study articles directly (Appendix C).
2.6.4 Determine reliability of codes
After completing the research and documenting relevant quotes and codes, the
primary researcher (the student) consulted with a secondary researcher (another student
who has experience with research coding) to assess the reliability of the codes. Following
a deductive coding process (LeCompte & Schensul, 2013, p. 167), the primary researcher
26
shared a 20% sample of his notes with the secondary researcher, along with the codes he
had developed. The secondary researcher then coded the notes using their interpretation
of the codes.
Originally, quotes were coded with multiple codes of either the psychosocial or
career functions of mentoring with multiple codes used on a single data point to help
focus broader concepts. For example, employee engagement is a broad term defined as
"aspects of the job that stimulate personal growth, learning and development" (Welsh &
Dixon, 2016, p 233). But, more specific codes, like organizational identification, defined
as “a perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of the organizations’
successes and failures as one’s own” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 103, cited by Cheng and
Peng (2016) narrow the scope of the data point. To establish interrater reliability, the
researcher used a method to calculate kappa on a one-to-many relationship. Kirilenko
and Stepchenkova (2016) established Fuzzy Kappa “for certain data usage purposes, the
requirement to describe a set of data by using one-to-one protocol may be overly
restrictive” (page 2). A reliable Kappa value is ≥.70 (Morgan, 2013). Using a coding
program developed for Fuzzy Kappa (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2016), the researcher
determined the Fuzzy Kappa value of .27 for career function codes and .25 for
psychosocial function codes. Due to the low interrater reliability, the researcher went
back to the “create codes” step and redefined the codes. The researcher decided to detach
the codes from the two mentor functions of psychosocial and career (Kram K. , 1983)
because many codes apply to both the psychosocial and career functions of mentoring.
Then, the researcher redefined the codes to create 7 top level codes (Table 10). The
original codes, shown in Appendix C were not well enough defined to be applied
27
consistently. Applying MacQueenet al. (1998) to remove deadwood, the researcher
combined codes. For example, the original codes had affective commitment, adjustment,
developmental climate, and job embeddedness. However, all the codes had a common
theme, employee engagement. Therefore, the researcher combined them into one code,
employee engagement. Additionally, to help focus the definitions of those seven codes,
the researcher created a definition matrix (MacQueen et al., 1998). The researcher then
reapplied those seven codes to the quotes originally determined from the “Reducing Raw
Data” step. A second round of interrater reliability with a different 20% of quotes was
done with the original second researcher. The results of the second interrater reliability
was a Fuzzy Kappa of .702, within the acceptable range.
2.7 Step 7: Write Report
After analyzing and synthesizing the data, the researcher wrote the final report
with feedback from the thesis committee and editor.
Chapter Two discussed the methodology used for this MSR study. Chapter Three
discusses the findings of the study. Chapter Four discusses the implications of the
findings.
28
Table 10 Code Definitions
Outcome Definition
Career Resilience
(CR)
Career resilience is the protégé’s ability to adapt to all situations,
including disruptive change. The protégé demonstrates career
resilience by performing well in new settings, as well as their own
feeling of comfort, competence and satisfaction in new settings
(Arora & Rangnekar, 2014; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Zhuang et
al., 2013). A protégé not demonstrating career resilience results in
ongoing job stress, which leads to burnout (Dowden &Tellier,
2004).
Career Success (CS) Career success is when the protégé has achieved “a high level in
[their] profession” (Monserrat et al., 2009). Elements of success
include “pay, promotions, status… job and life satisfaction” (Judge
& Bretz, 1992, p.58) There are two types of career success:
Objective career success, defined as observable success such as
promotion, seniority, salary, and increased responsibility (Judge &
Bretz, 1992; Nicholson, 2000; Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018, p. 118).
Subjective career success is defined by the protégé satisfaction for
their current career. Examples include development opportunities,
happiness, work/life balance (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Bach
Ouerdian et al., 2018)
Employee
Engagement (EE)
Employee engagement is the elements of a protégé’s job that
encourage their personal growth and learning. (Welsh & Dixon,
2016) Engaged employees identify with an organization’s direction
(Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Cheng & Peng, 2016) have an emotional
connection with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997, Fleig-
Palmer & Rathert, 2015) and express an intention to stay with the
organization (Currivan, 1999; Naim & Lenka, 2017).
A non-engaged employee may demonstrate organizational deviance
by behaving in ways that “erode organizational norms and bring
potential harm to [the organization] (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;
Michel, Newness, & Duniewicz, 2016)" (Cheng & Peng, 2016, p.
119).
Mutual Development
(MD)
Mutual development is the synergistic power of the mentoring
relationship which allows the pair to work collaboratively to achieve
more goals, generate more knowledge and access more resources as
a pair than they could individually. (Deptula & Williams, 2017).
Personal learning (PL) Personal learning is the protégé acquiring “the skills, knowledge or
competence that contribute to career outcomes” (Rueywei et al.,
2014, p. 489).
29
Protege Satisfaction
(PS)
Protégés that are satisfied with their mentor and the mentor
experience. Welsh and Dixon (2016) state that satisfied proteges
align their expectations with the provided support.
Professional Exposure
(PX)
Professional exposure is when the “visibility of the protégé in the
enterprise” (Grima et al., 2014, p. 471) is increased through job
assignments and interactions with influencers.
Because navigating these interactions and assignments successfully
requires political skill (Rogers et al.,2016), the mentor needs to
share knowledge of processes, people and systems (Bryant et al.,
2005), and provide protection from the mentor to help the protégé
avoid actions that may damage their image and reputation. (Grima
et al., 2014).
30
CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This chapter discusses the results from the steps outlined in Chapter Two. First,
the chapter discusses the alignment of the outcomes identified in the MSR articles. The
quantitative measures are discussed to answer Research Question 1a. This is followed by
a discussion of the scales referenced in the quantitative studies, which will answer
Research Question 1B. After that, the assessments used in the qualitative articles are
discussed, answering Research Question 1C.
The researcher tallied the codes that applied to each article. Those results are
shown in Table 12. The tally shows that career success, employee engagement, and
personal learning were the most-assessed codes in the quantitative studies. Career success
and mutual development showed up in both qualitative studies.
3.1 Research Question 1a: What are the assessed outcomes of mentoring programs?
The measured assessed outcomes of mentoring programs found in this MSR are
tied to the seven codes defined in Table 10. Six of the codes were measured
quantitatively in the study articles: career resilience, career success, employee
engagement, personal learning, protégé satisfaction, and professional exposure. Two of
the codes were assessed by both qualitative studies (Deptula & Williams, 2017; Janssen
et al., 2018): career success and mutual development. The outcomes that were measured
qualitatively and assessed qualitatively encompass a large range within the seven codes
developed for this MSR. Table 11 describes the specific elements of each of the codes
that the studies in the MSR focused on. Additionally, many studies measured mentoring
31
and mentoring function in general (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014; Cheng & Peng, 2016;
Grima et al., 2014; Koyoncu et al., 2014; Naim & Lenka, 2017; Rogers etl al., 2016
Table 11 Elements of outcomes measured by MSR studies
Outcome Element Study Career Resilience Career resilience Arora and Rangneker (2014)
Protégé adjustment Zhuang et al. (2013)
Burnout factors Farnese et al. (2017)
Career Success Career development Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015)
Job promotion Rueywei et al. (2014)
Lyle and Smith (2014)
Job performance Srivastava and Thakur (2013)
Makokha et al. (2014)
Deptula and Williams (2017)
Janssen et al. (2018)
Career / job satisfaction Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015)
Rueywei et al. (2014)
Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018)
Koyuncu et al. (2014)
Farnese et al. (2017)
Competency
development
Welsh and Dixon (2016)
Work adjustment Zhuang et al. (2013)
Mentor competency Janssen et al. (2018)
Length of mentoring
relationships
Deptula and Williams (2017)
32
Employee
Engagement
Employee engagement Welsh and Dixon (2016)
Janssen et al. (2018)
Organizational
identification
Cheng and Peng (2016)
Organizational support Naim and Lenka (2017)
Perceived
developmental / learning
climate
Cheng and Peng (2016)
Farnese et al. (2017)
Welsh and Dixson (2016)
Intention to stay with
the organization
Naim and Lenka (2017)
Positive work attitudes Janssen et al. (2018)
Positive work
environment
Janssen et al. (2018)
Organizational deviance Cheng and Peng (2016)
Burnout Farnese et al. (2017)
Exclusion of others
outside the mentor
relationship
Janssen et al. (2018)
Mutual Development Protégé and mentor
performance as a team
Deptula and Williams (2017)
Janssen et al. (2018)
Personal and
professional changes
resulting from
mentoring
Srivastava (2015)
33
Personal Learning Personal learning Arora and Rangnekar (2014)
Role modeling Cheng and Peng (2016)
Personal skill
development
Srivastava and Thakur (2013)
Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015)
Relational job learning Srivastava and Thakur (2013)
Knowledge of
organizational values
Farnese et al. (2017)
Personal learning
resources
Farnese et al. (2017)
Janssen et al. (2018)
Protégé Satisfaction Job/career satisfaction Koyuncu et al. (2014)
Mentor quality Zhenyuan et al. (2016)
Professional
Exposure
Exposure and visibility Arora and Rangnekar (2014)
Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018)
Grima et al. (2014)
Protégé ingratiation Smith-Jenstch (2012)
Assignments given Cheng and Peng (2016)
Social and professional
connections
Farnese et al. (2017)
Srivastava (2015)
Political skill and
organizational politics
Roberts et al. (2016)
Srivastava and Thakur (2013)
Knowledge sharing Zhenyuan et al. (2016)
Protégé power Janssen et al. (2018)
The environment for
risk taking
Janssen et al. (2018)
Connections with
coworkers
Srivastava (2015)
Zhuang (2013)
Rueywei et al., 2014; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2012; Srivastava & Thakur, 2013; Zhuang et
al., 2013) using a variety of established scales (Allen, 2003; Allen & Eby, 2003; Berk,
Berg, Mortimer, Walton-Moss & Yeo, 2005; Burke, 1984; Castro, Scandura & Ragins,
2004; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Noe, 1988; Poteat et al., 2015; Ragins & Scandura, 1999;
Scandura & Ragins, 1993).
34
Table 12 Count of articles that measure the MSR codes
Type of study
Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Total
Career
Resilience
4 0 0 4
Career
Success
10 2 1 13
Employee
Engagement
4 1 0 5
Mutual
Development
0 2 1 3
Personal
Learning
6 1 0 7
Protégé
Satisfaction
2 0 0 2
Professional
Exposure
11 1 1 13
Total
number of
articles
17 2 1 20
The specific measures and outcomes, organized by the codes and definitions in
Table 10, are discussed. The scales that were the foundations for the quantitative
measures used in the MSR articles are described. Finally, the qualitative assessments and
outcomes from the MSR articles are discussed, also organized by the code definitions
from Table 10.
35
3.2 Research Question 1b: What quantitative measures and scales do organizations
use to assess mentoring programs?
Seventeen of the studies in this MSR measured mentor outcomes quantitatively.
Those measurements covered six of the seven codes defined in Table 10. Fifteen of the
studies compiled results of surveys. Two studies used extant data: Lyle and Smith (2014)
measured administrative personnel data and Makokha et al. (2014) measured lab quality
results. Table 13 shows which codes each study measured. After the table is a discussion
of how each code was measured, as well as a discussion of the established scales
referenced in these studies.
This information is organized by the codes defined in Table 10. Most of the data
in the MSR articles was collected by surveys, mainly based on 5-point or 7-point Likert
scales. Some surveys did include nominal data, such as Yes/No questions or single
answer questions (e.g. “How long have you been in the mentor relationship?”).
3.2.1 Career Resilience
As mentioned in Table 10, career resilience is the protégé’s ability to adapt to all
situations, including disruptive change. The protégé demonstrates career resilience by
performing well in new settings, as well as by their own feeling of comfort, competence
and satisfaction in new settings (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014; Black & Gregersen, 1991;
Zhuang et al., 2013). As defined by Dowden and Tellier (2004), a protégé who does not
demonstrate career resilience experiences ongoing job stress, which leads to burnout.
36
Table 13 Quantitative articles and applied MSR codes
Key:
CR = career resilience
CS= career success
EE= employee engagement
MD= mutual development
PL= personal learning
PS= protégé satisfaction
PX= professional exposure
Code
Author CR CS EE PL PS PX
Arora and Rangnekar
(2014)
X X X
Bach Ouerdian et al.
(2018)
X X
Cheng and Peng
(2016)
X X X
Farnese et al. (2017) X X X X X
Grima et al. (2014) X
Holtbrügge and
Ambrosius, (2015)
X X
Koyuncu et al.
(2014)
X X X
Lyle and Smith
(2014)
X
Makokha et al.
(2014)
X
Naim and Lenka
(2017)
X X
Rogers et al. (2016) X
Rueywei et al. Lang
(2014)
X
37
Smith-Jentsch et al.
(2012)
X
Srivastava (2015)
(as a mixed methods
study)
X
Srivastava and
Thakur (2013)
X X X X
Welsh and Dixon
(2016)
X X
Zhenyuan et al.
(2016)
X X
Zhuang et al. (2013) X X X
In Arora and Rangnekar (2014), career resilience was measured by survey of the
protégé. They modified items from Carson and Bedeian (1994) to create their survey. An
example question asked in the survey was “the discomforts associated with my line of
work/career field sometimes seem too great” (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014, p. 212). A 5-
point scale from 1) “strongly disagree” to 5) “strongly agree” was used to measure the
survey items. Arora and Rangnekar (2014) concluded that psychosocial mentoring
(defined in Table 3) impacts career resilience for the protégé, but career mentoring (also
defined in Table 3) does not impact career resilience.
Zhuang et al. (2013) measured protégé adjustment. Adjustment to new settings is
part of the definition of career resilience in Table 10. This measurement, conducted by
survey, was based on the scale developed by Black & Stephens (1989). Respondents
answered questions on the protégé’s adjustment to living in a foreign country along a
five-point scale from 1) “totally disagree” to 5) “totally agree.” An example question
asked was “‘I can adjust to the performance standards and expectations in my host
38
country” (p. 41). Zhuang et al. (2013) concluded that “mentorship is an effective
mechanism to facilitate expatriate adjustment” and “the assistance provided by mentors,
from both the home and the host countries, facilitates expatriate adjustment in the host
country. In other words, multiple-mentor support networks might better assist expatriate
adjustment” (p. 45).
Farnese et al. (2017) surveyed new correctional officers to determine their
mentoring and the factors that lead to burnout. Burnout is defined by Dowden and Teller
(2004) as “the protracted consequence of unabated job stress” (p. 34). Farnese et al.
(2017) measured burnout in a survey by modifying the personal accomplishment,
cynicism, and emotional exhaustion dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996), and the interpersonal strain dimension
modified from Borgogni, Consiglio, Alessandri, and Schaufeli (2012). An example
question asked by Farnese et al. (2017) was “I deal very effectively with the problems of
my work” (p. 324). The conclusion of the study on burnout amongst correctional officers
is that “mentoring proved to be a protective factor against burnout onset” (Farnese et al.,
2017, p. 325).
Established scales used to measure career resiliance in the articles in this MSR
focused on different aspects of career resiliance. The articles focused on adjustment
(Black and Stephens,1989), interpersonal strain (Borgogni et al. ,2012), career
commitment (Carson and Bedeian 1994), and burnout (Schaufeli et al., 1996). None of
the established scales directly measured the use of interventions, such as mentoring, into
career resiliance.
39
The studies in this MSR that measured career resilience focused on career reliance
itself (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014), adjustment to a new environment (Zhuang et al.,
2013), and burnout (Farnese et al. 2017). All three studies measured the outcomes of
mentoring in relation to a protégé’s resilience. All three studies concluded that mentoring
was a factor in supporting career resilience by helping protégés adjust and reduce their
stress.
As an additional note, while their study did not directly measure elements of
career resiliance, Srivastava and Thakur (2013) specifically comment on reacting to
circumstances affecting performance of a mentor.
The fact that job performance is influenced so much by situational factors beyond
the control of mentees or individual mentors, as argued here, means that it is quite
possible that in the present study there may have been many mentees with good
relationships who performed poorly because of the effect of negative situational
factors, while the effect of positive situational factors may have been responsible
for many with poor relationships performing well (Srivastava & Thakur, 2013. p.
24).
These situational factors cannot be tied to mentoring but should be used as a
caution while measuring the impact of mentoring on factors like career resilience.
3.2.1 Career Success
Career success is defined as when the protégé has achieved a high level in [their]
profession (Table 10). Objective career success is defined as observable success such as
promotion, seniority, salary, and increased responsibility (Judge et al., 1995; Nicholson,
2000, Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018). Subjective career success is defined as the protégé’s
40
satisfaction for their current career. Examples include development opportunities,
happiness, work/life balance (Hall & Chandler, 2005, Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018).
3.2.1.1 Articles that measured both objective and subjective career success
Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) measured career success as both career
development and career satisfaction. Survey items in Holtbrügge and Ambrosius’s (2015)
research tested career development (aka objective career success) were based on the
study published by Gould & Penleys (2014). Questions asked included “I learned
technical skills or product knowledge during my assignment that helped me in future
positions”;. “I successfully built a network in the host country”. “I can incorporate new
ways of thinking and problem solving due to spending time in a different culture. I can
see problems from a different perspective”; and “Due to my assignment, I can see the
goals of the organization as a whole, not just the immediate needs in my own home plant.
I use this attribute to make decisions in my current position” (Holtbrügge & Ambrosius,
2015, p. 285).
Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) also asked survey questions about career
satisfaction (aka subjective career success). These questions were based on the career
satisfaction scale in Greenhaus, Parasurman, and Wormley (1990). The survey asked the
following three questions: “The assignment prepared me well for future career
opportunities”; “Upon return to my home country, I began directly in a higher position
than when I left”; and “Did the assignment adequately prepare you for greater
responsibilities” (Holtbrügge & Ambrosius, 2015, p. 285).
Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) concluded that skill development is an
important interim step between mentoring and career development, and skill development
41
an important measure in showing career development. Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015)
state, “If the mentor knows about the plans and ambitions of the mentee in advance,
he/she can support the mentee and help him/her gain the skills needed for the career
development” (Holtbrügge & Ambrosius, 2015, p. 288).
Rueywei et al. (2014) measured career success by measuring a job promotion
scale (objective career success) which was their own design, and a job satisfaction scale
(subjective career success) based on the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss,
Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). No examples of specific questions used in the survey
were reported by Rueywei et al. (2014). The results of this study showed that “Mentoring
provides a number of benefits to protégés, including increased frequency and speed of
promotion and increased job satisfaction” (Rueywei et al., 2014, p. 498).
3.2.1.2 Articles that measure objective career success
Srivastava and Thakur (2013) measured career success by using a scale of role-
based performance developed by Welbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998). This scale
investigated five dimensions of performance: job performance, team performance, career
performance, organizational citizenship and innovation performance (Srivastava &
Thakur, 2013, p 20). No examples of specific questions used in the survey were reported.
Srivastava and Thakur (2013) found “relational mentoring to be a valid predictor of …
personal skill development (partial mediation)” (p. 24).
Welsh and Dixon (2016) measured competency development using self-measured
pre-mentoring and post-mentoring ratings, using survey questions designed specifically
for their work. Questions asked about competency development included “’apply
strategies to ensure effective conflict resolution’, ‘modify her/his communication style to
42
positively impact work relationships’, and ‘navigate organizational politics’” (Welsh &
Dixon, 2016, p. 238). The study found that competency development is related to skill
development and that “development was maximized when mentees quickly implemented
or practiced what they learned, as competency development was related to skill practice.”
(Welsh & Dixon, 2016, p. 242).
Lyle and Smith (2014) is one of the few studies that did not use a survey, but
instead measured personnel records of the US Department of Defense. Lyle and Smith
(2014) looked at employment records of battalion commanders who served as mentors
and the company commanders who were the battalion commanders’ protégés. The
primary measurement used was the time it took for company commanders to promote
from Captain to Major, especially when compared to the quality of the mentor. Their
study showed that a junior officer serving under a high-performing mentor led to early
promotion. A mentor who was promoted to Major early was considered “high
performing”. Lyle and Smith (2014) concluded “The likelihood of early promotion
increases in the duration of the high-quality mentorship, and the impact of time spent
with a high performing mentor is also greater for higher-ability protégés” (p. 232).
Makokha et al. (2014) studied a mentor program’s impact on organizations rather
than individuals by studying the overall lab quality scores where mentoring programs
with higher-performing labs were implemented. Those results were compared to lab
results where mentoring programs were not implemented. An important point from this
study is that the measurement showed improvement over several tests taken at distinct
time intervals. Makokha et al. (2014) stated in the introduction that “observational studies
have suggested that the mentorship component, especially when aligned to laboratory
43
accreditation goals and overall plans of the Ministry of Health (MOH), provides
substantial impact on laboratory quality improvement” (p. 2). In the conclusion, the study
confirmed that
The eight regional-level laboratories in Kenya’s first SLMTA cohort all made
substantial quality improvements, moving from zero SLIPTA stars to anywhere
from one to fourstars in a period of one year. Laboratories twinned with research
institutions started slightly higher and improved nearly twice as much as non-
twinned laboratories during the first half of the programme (Makokha et al., 2014,
p. 5).
3.2.1.3 Articles that measure subjective career success
Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018) focused on subjective career success. Measurements
were done by a survey based on Turban & Dougherty’s (1994) work. Sample questions
asked were “Do you think your career is successful?”; “In comparison with your
colleagues, how successful do you think your career is?”; “At what point do you think
your career is successful?”; and “Considering your age, do you think your career is
successful?” (Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018, p. 129). Beyond measuring subjective career
success, an underlying theme reported on in Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018) is the impact of
mentoring on career success by gender, which was analyzed by looking at the surveys
based on gender. The authors concluded that men who are mentored are promoted and
translate the psychosocial support to feeling successful. Women, on the other hand, do
not translate the mentoring support into promotions or feelings of success.
Koyuncu et al. (2014) measured the effect of mentoring on women in Turkish
banks. Like Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015), the survey designed by Koyuncu et al.
44
(2014) for their research asked questions based on Greenhaus et al. (1990). Those
questions asked by Greenhaus et al. (1990) were “I am satisfied with the success I have
achieved in my career”; “I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my
overall career goals”; “I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my
goals for income”; “I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my
goals for advancement”; and, “I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward
meeting my goals for the development of new skills” (p. 86).
One conclusion from the study was that women who had role models were more
satisfied with their jobs (Koyuncu et al., 2014). However, the overall results of this study
showed that with women in Turkish banks, Koyuncu et al, (2014) study participants,
having a mentor on its own was not enough to ensure career success. Further changes to
organizational culture are also needed.
Farnese et al. (2017) stated that mentoring influences personal accomplishment,
which the authors define as feeling effective at work and “job-related sense of adequacy”
(p 324). Farnese et al. (2017) measured personal accomplishment by asking survey
questions such as “I have done many worthwhile things on this job” (p. 324). They
concluded that mentoring “was positively slightly correlated with personal
accomplishment” (Farnese et all, 2017, p. 325).
Zhuang et al. (2013) focused on the difference in mentoring between a mentor
from the “host country” (where the protégé is now working) and a mentor from the
“home country” (where the protégé is from). The study states that employees working
overseas fail because they are “unable to adjust to [a] different psychological or cultural
environment” (Zhuang et al., 2013, p. 36). Therefore, career success is a result of work
45
adjustment. The study measured work adjustment through a survey of protégés, asking
questions focusing on interactions within the new culture and work environment. Zhuang
et al. (2013) conclude that mentors’ “career development functions can enhance
expatriate protégés’ work adjustment in the host country” (p. 45).
Established scales used to measure career success in the articles in this MSR
focused on career achievement (Greenhaus et al., 1990; Turban & Dougherty, 1994;
Wellbourne et al., 1998) and career satisfaction (Kofodimos, 1993; Weiss et al. 1967). .
All five established scales asked questions about career goals. Two established scales
(Greenhaus et al, 1990; Turban & Dougherty, 1994) measured a general overall feeling of
satisfaction. The remaining three scales (Kofodimos, 1993; Weiss et al. 1967;
Wellbourne et al., 1998) measure more specific details, like interactions with coworkers
and supervisors, the challenging nature of the work, and the recognition and praise for
outputs produced. None of the established scales specifically measured the factors that
led to career success or satisfaction, like mentoring.
Ten studies in this MSR measured career success as it related to mentoring. Two
studies measured both objective and subjective carer success (Holtbrügge & Ambrosius,
2015; Rueywei et al., 2014). Four only measured objective career success (Srivastava &
Thakur, 2013; Welsh & Dixon, 2016; Lyle & Smith, 2014; Makokha et al. ,2014) Four
measured subjective career success (Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018; Koyuncu et al. 2014;
Farnese et al., 2017; Zhuang et al. 2013). The ten studies focused on various elements of
career success (Table 11) Two of the studies (Lyle & Smith, 2014; Makokha et al., 2014)
used extant data to measure career success, without using any survey data. The remaining
46
eight studies measured career success by surveying the respondents about their own
success.
3.2.3 Employee engagement
Employee engagement is defined in Table 10 as the elements of a protégé’s job
that encourage their personal growth and learning. Engaged employees identify with an
organization’s direction (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Cheng & Peng, 2016) have an
emotional connection with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991, Fleig-Palmer &
Rathert, 2015) and express an intention to stay with the organization (Currivan, 1999;
Naim, & Lenka, 2017).
Cheng and Peng (2016) focused on organizational deviance, organizational
identification, and perceived developmental climate. The study used surveys of protégés
and mentors to measure each element. The questions for organizational deviance were
based on Bennet and Robinson (2000). A sample question used was “I intentionally
worked slower than they (your protégé) could have” (Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 207). Job
embeddedness questions were based on Crossley, Bennet, Jex, and Burfield (2007). A
sample question used was “I [the protégé] am tightly connected to the organization”
(Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 207). Perceived development survey questions were based on
Mael and Ashforth (1992). A sample question used was “Professional growth is
encouraged in my organization” (Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 207). From their surveys,
Cheng and Peng (2016) conclude that “the supportive behaviors and role models of
organizational agents [mentors] can influence employee organizational deviance” (p.
214).
47
The study by Farnese et al. (2017) focused on burnout, which is a direct measure
of lack of employee engagement. Employee engagement (coded by Farnese et al. as
“learning process”) was measured in two dimensions based on Chao, O’Leary-Kelly,
Wolf, Klein and Gardner (1994). First, the people dimension was measured with sample
questions like “I believe most of my co-workers like me” (Farnese et al., 2017, p. 324).
The goals and values dimension was measured with survey questions like “I support the
goals that are set by my organization” (Farnese et al., 2017, p. 324). Questions used to
measure burnout were based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey
(Schaufeli et al., 1996). A sample survey question related to burnout was “I have become
less enthusiastic at work” (Farnese et al., 2017, p. 324). Finally, the researchers created
questions to measure interpersonal strain based on Borgogni et al. (2012). A sample
question related to interpersonal strain was “at work I treat others in a cold and detached
manner” (Farnese et al., 2017, p. 324). The results showed that “Mentors also appear to
nourish the newcomers’ social networks and encourage their integration and acceptance
processes, thus helping to prevent a distant and disengaged attitude toward work
(cynicism), and reducing the distance from other people at work (interpersonal strain)”
(Farnese et al., 2017, p. 327).
The focus of Naim and Lenka (2017) was on perceived organizational support,
affective commitment and intention to stay. Naim and Lenka based their survey questions
around perceived organizational support on the scale from Eisenberger, Cummings,
Armeli and Lynch (1997). The survey included questions like “My organization cares
about my opinion.” To measure affective commitment, Naim and Lenka (2017) surveyed
their study population with questions based on Meyer and Allen (1997) such as “I really
48
feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.” For intention to stay, the sample
survey questions were based on Mayfield and Mayfield (2007). Questions included “I
expect to be working for my current employer one year from now.” (Naim & Lenka,
2017, p. 322). Naim and Lenka’s results supported the hypothesis that “mentoring and
intention to stay were positively related”; “mentoring and perceived organizational
support were positively related”; and “mentoring and affective commitment were
positively related” (p. 323).
Welsh and Dixon (2016) specifically measured employee engagement by using a
six-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” at various time checkpoints
in the mentoring relationship. Items began with, “To what extent do you agree that
participation in the program has positively impacted your,” and ended with, for example,
“level of engagement within your organization?” and “your readiness to take on roles
with greater complexity, scope or authority?” (Welsh & Dixon, 2016, p. 238). However,
Welsh and Dixon also suggest that additional factors need to be accounted for when
measuring employee engagement, such as skill practice and support of the protégé. Welsh
and Dixon recommended that all factors are measured.
Several articles briefly touch on, but do not directly measure, employee
engagement of the protégé. Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018) only mention employee
engagement briefly. Bach Ouerdian et al. state “One explanatory factor for interpreting
the low level of psychosocial mentoring perceived by women could be that the mentor
[is] primarily the responsibility of men and few women fulfill this role for their female
colleagues” (p 134). That low-level of connection is tied to lower mentoring impact on
49
employee engagement. However, employee engagement is not a primary measure in
Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018). Koyuncu et al. (2014) reported the results:
Women managers and professionals reporting higher levels of career development
tended to also [indicate] higher levels of job satisfaction … and women managers
and professionals reporting higher levels of psychosocial functions from their
mentors tended to report lower levels of exhaustion. But not statistically
significant…” (p. 13).
Lyle and Smith (2014) briefly discussed social identity, which was defined as
“closely identifying with the organizations norms …If high-performing mentors are more
effective in developing social identity in their protégés, their protégés should also
experience faster promotion” (p. 249). This ties to the emotional connection of the
organization, an element of employee engagement. Makokha et al. (2014) labels
employee engagement as “motivation” in their discussion section, however, they do not
measure employee engagement directly.
The established scales used to measure employee engagement in this MSR
focused on learning culture (Aryee, Lo, Kang, 1999), deviant behavior (Bennet &
Robinson, 2000; ), strategic outlook (Boswell & Boudreau, 2001), employee commitment
(Burke, 1991; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2007; Meyer and Allen, 1997), socialization (Chao
et al., 1994), job embeddedness and organizational identification (Crossley et al., 2007;
Mael and Ashforth, 1992), perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1997),
job conditions (Eisenberger et al., 1997), and motivating language (Mayfield & Mayfield,
2007). Both Bennet and Robinson (2000), Burke (1991) measure employee engagement
from an undesired behavior standpoint (deviant actions and leaving the organization).
50
Three studies measured employee’s desired behaviors and attitudes (Crossley et al., 2007;
Eisenberger et al., 1997; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2007). Three
studies also ask questions about the respondents’ perception of organizational culture
(Aryee, et al., 1999; Chao et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Meyer and Allen (1997)
asked respondents questions on desired behavior and attitudes, like “I would be very
happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization” (p. 118) and undesired behavior
and attitudes, like “I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ in this organization” (p. 118).
Chao et al. (1994) also asked about desired behaviors and attitudes, like “I can identify
the people in this organization who are most important in getting the work done” (p. 734)
and undesired behaviors and attitudes, like “I do not always believe in the values set by
my organization” (p. 735). Ayree et al. (1999) measured interventions that lead to
employee engagement but did not specifically mention mentoring. None of the
established scales specifically measured the factors that led to employee engagement, like
mentoring.
Four studies in this MSR measured employee engagement as it related to
mentoring. The four studies focused on employee engagement (Welsh & Dixon, 2016),
organizational identification (Cheng & Peng, 2016), organizational support (Naim &
Lenka, 2017), perceived developmental / learning climate (Cheng & Peng, 2016; Farnese
et al., 2017), organizational support (Naim & Lenka, 2017), intention to stay with the
organization (Naim & Lenka, 2017), organizational deviance (Cheng & Peng, 2016),
burnout (Farnese et al., 2017).
Farnese et al. (2017), Naim and Lenka (2017) and Welsh and Dixon (2016)
surveyed the protégés. Cheng and Peng (2016) surveyed both protégés and mentors.
51
Naim and Lenka (2017) and Welsh and Dixon (2016) focused on mentoring effects on
desired outcomes of employee engagement, including organizational support. Cheng and
Peng (2016) and Farnese et al. (2017) did measure desired outcomes, like perceived
climate, but the principal focus was on mentoring impacts on undesired outcomes
including burnout and organizational deviance.
3.2.4 Mutual development
In Table 10, mutual development is defined as the synergistic power of the
mentoring relationship which allows the pair to work collaboratively to achieve more
goals, generate more knowledge and access more resources as a pair than they could
individually (Deptula & Williams, 2017). No quantitative articles in this MSR
specifically measure mutual development.
Grima et al. (2014) attempted to measure the mutual development of both the
protégé and the mentor, including the effects of same-gender versus different-gender
pairings. The focus of this study is on the mentor’s experience specifically, and four of
the six hypotheses focus on the “psychological and instrumental benefits gained by the
mentor” (Grima et al., 2014, p. 475). Survey questions that focus on the benefits of
mentoring are 13 items on a five-point response; however, no specifics are listed.
Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) specified,
The study shows that the outcomes of mentoring in terms of skill and career
development may be more positive when the mentoring relationship is reciprocal
and not affected by conflicting objectives of different departments. To avoid this,
it is important to ensure that both parties receive as much as they give, which is
more likely when they come from unrelated departments. It may thus be
52
advantageous if [the] mentor and the person responsible for mentor selection are
organizationally distant from the mentee (Ensher, Craig & Murphy 2001; Kram
1983) (as cited by Holtbrügge & Ambrosius, 2015, p. 289).
These conclusions come from measurements of job performance after mentoring,
as well as the organizational closeness of the mentors. Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015)
do not define organizational closeness but measured it by asking “if the … mentor
worked in the same department” (p. 284).
3.2.5 Personal learning
Personal learning is defined as the protégé acquiring “the skills, knowledge or
competence that contribute to career outcomes” (Rueywei et al., 2014, p. 489) in Table
10.
Arora and Rangnekar (2014) used survey questions based on Noe (1988) such as
“I try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor” (p. 211) that measure elements of the
protégé’s personal learning. They conclude that the development of Indian managers in
their study “is characterized by excessive dependence on the supervisors for their
socioemotional development” (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014, p. 214).
Cheng and Peng (2016) asked questions based on the role modeling section of the
Mentoring Functions Scale (Scandura & Ragins, 1993). The survey asked survey
questions about personal learning, such as” I try to model my behavior after my mentor”
(Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 207). They concluded that “the supportive behaviors and role
models of organizational agents can influence employee organizational deviance” (Cheng
& Peng, 2016, p. 214).
53
Srivastava and Thakur (2013) used the 12-item scale on personal learning
developed by Lankau and Scandura (2002) to measure the respondents’ level of personal
learning on two dimensions of personal skill development and relational job learning.
Srivastava and Thakur (2013) conclude that “relational mentoring and personal learning
are positively related” (p. 20). However, they also conclude that personal learning on its
own does not “mediate the relationship between motivation to mentor and role based
performance” (Srivastava & Thakur , 2013, p. 20).
Farnese et al. (2017) conclude that “mentoring positively enhances personal
learning resources” (p. 326). The authors define personal learning resources as “feeling
more adjusted in the social and work system.” (Farnese et al., 2017, p. 323). To measure
this, they surveyed their participants on two dimensions of learning based on Chao et al.
(1994). To measure the people dimension, the survey asked questions like “I believe most
of my coworkers like me”. To measure the goals and values dimension, the survey asked
questions like “I support the goals that are set by my organization” (Farnese et al., 2017,
p. 324).
While these questions seem to be more about employee engagement, Farnese et
al. (2017) concluded that social connections and knowing the organization values are part
of the personal learning of a protégé.
Formal mentoring also has a positive effect on the newcomers’ learning process
related to the understanding of the organizational goals, rules and principles
(Goals & Values), and to the establishment of successful relationships with other
organizational members (People) ... It further confirms the role of mentoring
54
interventions as a specific job resource able to enhance personal growth (Farnese
et al., 2017, p. 328).
Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) used the term “skill development” as a synonym for
“personal learning”. They defined skill development as “the degree to which an
expatriate acquires important skills during the assignment” (p. 284). Skill development
survey questions were based on both Gould and Penley (1984) and Lohman (2004).
Questions asked by Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) included “I learned technical skills
or product knowledge during my assignment that helped me in future positions”; “I
successfully built a network in the host country”; “I can incorporate new ways of thinking
and problem solving due to spending time in a different culture. I can see problems from
a different perspective”; and “due to my assignment, I can see the goals of the
organization as a whole, not just the immediate needs in my own home plant. I use this
attribute to make decisions in my current position” (p. 284). Holtbrügge and Ambrosius
(2015) concluded that “skill development is an important interim stage between
mentoring and career development” (p. 289).
The established scales used to measure personal learning in this MSR focused on
knowledge sharing tendencies (Bock, Zmud, Kim & Lee, 2005), career and personal
learning strategies (Gould & Penleys, 1984, Lankau & Scandura, 2002), problem solving
skills (Lohman, 2004), life’s mental demands (Kegan, 1994), and relational learning
(Kram, 1996; Lankau & Scandura, 2002). All the scales in personal learning have
elements of self-learning and learning through relationship with others. The list by Kegan
(1994) is the most focused on self-learning; the scale by Bock (2005) is the most focused
on learning with others. Kram (1994) directly measures mentoring. Gould and Penleys
55
(1984) do not specifically measure mentoring, however, they do have items asking about
behaviors to seek career guidance and networking.
Five studies in this MSR measured mentoring and personal learning. The studies
focused on personal learning (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014;), role modeling (Cheng & Peng,
2016) personal skill development (Srivastava & Thakur, 2013; Holtbrügge & Ambrosius
,2015), relational job learning (Srivastava & Thakur, 2013), knowledge of organizational
values (Farnese et al., 2017), and personal learning resources (Farnese et al., 2017). All
five studies conclude that mentoring positively influences a protégé’s personal learning.
Additional studies (Makokha et al., 2014; Rueywei et al., 2014; Smith-Jentsch et
al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2016) referred to personal learning, but did not directly measure
it. Makokha et al. (2014) talked about personal learning in their conclusion:
A consultancy team from the Association of Public Health Laboratories observed
that there had previously been little to no sharing of resources and knowledge
between the two groups, even where they were physically close in location. The
twinning approach helped to bring the laboratories together to bridge the quality
differential gap between the research laboratories and public laboratories that
serve the majority of the population (Makokha et al., 2014, p. 6).
However, no specific measurements beyond this observation appear in this article.
Rueywei et al. (2014) defined personal learning in a similar way to the one used in Table
10. The article, however, does not list specific questions used to measure the definition of
personal learning. Rueywei et al. does say that the measures included seven items for
personal skill development based on Kram (1996), and four items for relational job
56
learning based on Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995). The study concluded that mentoring
enhanced skill development in the participants.
While the outcome of Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012) stated that “supervisors who
were more strongly motivated to mentor for intrinsic satisfaction appear to have provided
greater support to protégés they felt had growth potential” (p. 65), no specific measure of
the protégé’s personal learning was done in this study. Rogers et al. (2016) focused on
the mentor’s learning goal orientation (LGO) based on VandeWalle (1997). Rogers et al.
(2016) does not directly measure personal learning from the protégé’s perspective.
3.2.6 Protégé satisfaction
Table 10 defines protégé satisfaction as protégés who are satisfied with their
mentor and the mentor experience.
Koyuncu et al., (2014) measure job satisfaction using five items developed by
Kofodimos (1993) including questions such as “I feel challenged by my work” (p. 10).
Career satisfaction was measured by questions such as “I am satisfied with the success I
have had in my career” (Koyuncu et al., 2014, p. 11) in scale developed by Greenhaus et
al. (1990). The authors conclude that “women having female mentors tended to be more
satisfied with their career progress to date” (Koyuncu et al., 2014, p. 13). However, they
also conclude that the “sex of one’s mentor seemed to have little impact on antecedents
and outcomes of the mentor relationship or on the mentor relationship itself” (Koyuncu et
al., 2014, p. 13).
Zhenyuan et al. (2016) measure mentor quality using Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995),
who measured Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). The authors hypothesize that mentor
quality is a mediator between impression management and mentor knowledge sharing.
57
The results show that “the mediating effect of mentorship quality on relationship between
protégés’ mentor-focused [impression management] tactics and mentor’s knowledge-
sharing behavior … is prominent” (Zhenyuan et al., 2016, p. 183).
Srivastava and Thakur (2013) report that satisfaction is a result all factors in the
workplace. The mentoring relationship is one of those many factors. However, there was
no direct measure of satisfaction in their study.
3.1.7 Professional exposure
Table 10 defined professional exposure is when the “visibility of the protégé in
the enterprise” (Grima et al., 2014, p. 471) is increased through job assignments and
interactions with influencers.
Arora and Rangnekar (2014), Bach Ouerdian et al.(2018) and Grima et al.(2014)
used a checklist by Noe (1988) to measure career and psychosocial mentoring. Part of
that checklist includes measures of “exposure and visibility” (Noe, 1988, p. 468). Grima
et al. (2014) used those results to show that “better job exposure is NOT supported as an
outcome of mentoring for the mentor” (p. 482).
Smith-Jenstch et al. (2012) measured protégé ingratiation in relation to mentor
motivation. They study defined ingratiation as “flattering others with the goal of gaining
acceptance or approval (Brodsky, 2004)” (Smith-Jentsch et al, 2012, p. 57). The authors
used the scale by Bolino and Turnley (1999) to assess protégé ingratiation. The results
showed that “the interaction between protégé ingratiation behavior and supervisor
motivation to mentor for self-enhancement was not a significant determinant of career
support received [by the protégé]” (Smith-Jentsch et al, 2012, p. 62).
58
Other articles also use established surveys to measure professional exposure.
Cheng and Peng (2016) used the survey created by Scandura and Ragins (1993) which
included the question “My mentor has placed me in important assignments” (Cheng &
Peng, 2016, p. 207). Farnese et al. (2017) used a scale by Chao et al. (1994) which
included items in a category about people like “within my workgroup, I would be
recognized as one of the gang” (p. 734). Farnese et al. (2017) results showed “mentors
also appear to nourish the newcomers’ social networks and encourage their integration
and acceptance processes, thus helping to prevent a distant and disengaged attitude
toward work (Cynicism) and reducing the distance from other people at work
(Interpersonal strain).” (p. 327) Rogers et al. (2016) referred to the survey by Berk et al.
(2005) which includes a question stating, “my mentor was helpful in providing direction
and guidance on professional issues (e.g. networking) (p. 71). Results in Rogers et al.
(2016) showed that “political skill moderated the relationship between mentor
commitment and mentor effectiveness” (p. 217). Srivastava and Thakur (2013) used the
scale from Lankau and Scandura (2002) which includes a question about organizational
politics. However, no specific results were reported in the results (Srivastava and Thakur,
2013). Zhenyuan et al.(2016) measured knowledge sharing based on Bock et al. (2005)
which includes the reciprocal effects of knowledge sharing. Their results show that “job-
focused impression management tactics had no effect on mentorship quality” (p. 183).
Zhuang et al. (2013) asked questions modified from Dreher and Ash (1990) such as
“Taiwanese mentor gave or recommended me for assignments that increased my contact
with higher-level managers”, or “Taiwanese mentor went out of his/her way to promote
my career interests” (p. 40). Zhuang et al. (2013) conclude that “home country mentors
59
… may know better than the host country mentors how expatriate protégés can overcome
problems about life in general and their interaction with collegues” (p. 45).
Srivastava (2015) completed quantitative measurements after completing
qualitative measurement in his mixed methods study. He specifically measured the
number of contacts the protégé had as a result of their mentor relationship by two
surveys. The first survey was conducted prior to the mentor program. The second was
conducted after two months of the protégé’s participation in the mentor program. Results
from Srivastava (2015) showed that “people who participate in targeted formal mentoring
will experience greater network expansion than comparable individuals who do not
participate in targeted formal mentoring." (p. 442).
The established scales used to measure professional exposure in this MSR
focused on responses to social situations (Bachner-Melman, Bacon-Shnoor, Zohar, Elizur
& Ebstein, 2009; Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Bolino, Varela, Bande & Turnley, 2006),
political skill (Ferris et al, 2005), and the respondent’s network connections (Podolny &
Baron, 1997). Podolny and Baron (1997) specifically measured who in the respondents’
network had the role of a mentor.
Eleven studies measured professional exposure in this MSR. The studies focused
on exposure and visibility (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014; Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018; Grima
et al., 2014), protégé ingratiation (Smith-Jenstch et al., 2012), assignments given (Cheng
& Peng, 2016), social and professional connections (Farnese et al., 2017; Srivastava,
2015), political skill and organizational politics (Roberts et al., 2016, Srivastava and
Thakur, 2013), knowledge sharing (Zhenyuan et al., 2016), and connections with
coworkers (Zhuang et al., 2013). Rogers et al. (2016), Zhuang et al. (2013), Srivastava
60
(2015) concluded that mentoring positively influenced the outcome professional
exposure. Grima et al. (2014), Smith-Jentch et al. (2012), and Zhenyuan et al. (2016)
concluded that the outcome of professional exposure was not an outcome that influenced
the mentor.
3.1.8 Scales used as more general measurements of mentoring
Many of the articles in this MSR built part of their measurements on more general
studies on mentoring. These general survey items were often used in combination with
the specific measured listed previously in this chapter to explain the mentor program
influence on the intended outcomes. The list of these general mentoring scales is shown
in Table 14.
Allen (2003) measured the motivation of the mentor to participate being in
mentors. The original measure was a survey with 253 professional women. Allen (2003)
measured experience as a mentor, willingness to mentor, prosocial personality and
mentor motives. She measured eleven items using a five-point scale from “1) no extent”
to “5) great extent”. Sample items Allen (2003) asked survey participants to rate as
reasons to mentor included “to enhance your visibility within the organization”, “a desire
to help others succeed in the organization”, and “the personal pride that mentoring
someone provides” (p. 142). Allen (2003) was referenced by Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012)
in this MSR.
Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012) used the scale in Allen (2003) for mentor motivation
as part of their study. No modification to the scale by Allen (2003) was reported. Smith-
Jentch et al. (2012) summarized the results:
61
Specifically, the more a supervisor was motivated to mentor for intrinsic
satisfaction, the stronger the positive relationship was between protégés’ potential
for advancement and the psychosocial support they reported receiving. Further,
protégés’ potential for advancement was less positively associated with career
support provided the more a supervisor was motivated for the benefit of others.
Finally, if a supervisor was strongly motivated for self-enhancement, protégés
who made greater attempts to ingratiate themselves reported receiving greater
psychosocial support. However, if a supervisor was not strongly motivated to
mentor for self-enhancement, protégé ingratiation attempts were negatively
associated with psychosocial support (p. 65).
The second established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Allen and Eby (2003) who measured factors that led to mentor effectiveness from the
mentor’s perspective. Like Allen (2003), the respondents to the survey by Allen and Eby
(2003) were 253 professional women. 249 of the respondents had served as mentors.
They first asked the respondents a yes/no question:
During your career, has there been an individual who you have taken a personal
interest in; who you have guided, sponsored, or otherwise had a positive and
significant influence on their professional career development? In other words,
have you ever been a mentor? (Allen & Eby, 2003, p. 476).
Second, the authors asked if the mentoring was informal or part of a formal
program, if the respondents were similar to their partner, and the length of the
relationship. Finally, the authors used a five-point scale from “1) strongly disagree” to
“5) strongly agree” to ask survey questions in the categories or relationship quality and
62
relationship learning. A sample question asked about relationship quality was “My
protégé and I enjoyed a high-quality relationship”; a sample question asked about
relationship learning was “my protégé gave me a new perspective on many things” (Allen
& Eby, 2003, p. 483). Allen and Eby (2003) was referenced by Grima et al. (2014) in this
MSR.
Table 14 General Mentoring Measurement Scales
Original article Referenced by Focus of scale
Allen (2003) Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012) Motivations to mentor
Allen and Eby (2003) Grima et al. (2014) Mentor effectiveness (from
mentor’s perspective)
Berk et al. (2005) Rogers et al. (2016) Mentor effectiveness
Burke (1984) Koyoncu et al. (2014) Mentor functions
Castro, Scandura and
Williams (2004)
Naim and Lenka (2017) Mentor relationships
Dreher and Ash (1990) Rueywei et al. (2014)
Srivastava and Thakur (2013)
Zhuang et al. (2013)
Effects of mentoring on
career outcomes
Noe (1988) Arora and Rangneker (2014)
Grima et al. (2014)
Koyoncu et al. (2014)
Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012)
Mentor functions across
multiple dimensions
Poteat et al. (2015) Rogers et al. (2016) Mentor satisfaction and
commitment
Ragins and Scandura
(1999)
Grima et al. (2014) Costs and benefits of
mentoring
Scandura and Ragins
(1993)
Cheng and Peng (2016) Mentoring functions
Grima et al. (2014) used the question to define a mentoring relationship and the
question defining an informal and formal mentor relationship used by Allen and Eby
(2003). The question about being a mentor helped Grima et al. (2014) qualify the
63
responses to their study. The informal vs. formal mentoring question was used to dissect
the relationship between career advice and rewarding experience; it was also used to
dissect the relationship between career advice and improved performance. Results
showed that “the association between career advice and rewarding experience [was]
highly significant in the case of informal mentoring … whereas the link was not
supported in the case of formal mentoring” (p. 480). The results for career advice and
improved performance were reported like this: “it is in the case of formal mentoring …
that the link between career advice activity and improved performance is the most
established in comparison with informal mentoring” (Grima et al., 2014, p. 481).
The third established scale that measured mentoring in this MSR was created by
Berk et al. (2005). Berk et al. (2005) measured mentor effectiveness with a created
Mentor Effectiveness Scale. The scale was originally used with mentees nominated by
mentors, with a focus on medical school faculty. The authors created three sections to
their study: 1) A description of the relationship, 2) Outcome measures and 3) the
Mentorship Effectiveness Scale. The description of the relationship was measured using
the following open-ended questions like “What was the role of your mentor?” and “How
would you characterize the strengths and weaknesses of your relationship?” (Berk et al.,
2005, p. 70). Outcomes were measured by one question. The directions were to check
which of the ten activities listed resulted from interaction with the mentor. Sample items
included “publication, job change/promotion, and new teaching method or strategy” Berk
et al., 2005, p. 71). The Mentor Effectiveness Scale was a series of twelve survey
questions with a 6-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” with a “not
applicable” option. Sample items asked by Berk et al., (2005) were “My mentor was
64
accessible”; “My mentor demonstrated content expertise in my area of need”, and “My
mentor challenged me to extend my abilities” (p. 71). Berk et al. (2005) was referenced
by Rogers et al. (2016) in this MSR.
Rogers et al. (2016) used Berk et al. (2005) to measure mentor effectiveness.
Rogers et al. (2016) asked mentors’ supervisors four questions based on the Mentorship
Effectiveness Scale to measure “mentor behaviors that proved to be effective for mentor
success (Kram, 1988), namely, the provision of both psychosocial (e.g. being
approachable) and career-related (e.g. providing guidance on professional matters)
mentoring” (p. 216). The results of Rogers et al. (2016) in regard to mentor effectiveness
were reported this way: “we found support for the role of both getting along (i.e., self-
monitoring, political skill) and getting ahead (i.e., learning goal orientation, strategic
outlook) motives as important mentor attributes. The impact of mentor commitment
corresponded with diminished mentoring effectiveness when these attributes were
deficient” (p. 218).
The fourth established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Burke (1984), who measured mentor functions. Originally the scale was used with 80
participants in a management development course. The author used a mixed methods
approach, surveying the respondents with open-ended and fixed response questions. The
fixed response questions used a seven-item scale from “1) not at all” to “7) a great deal”.
Sample fixed items surveyed were “host to a new world”, “went to bat for me”, and
“opened doors for me” (Burke, 1984, p. 362). Burke (1984) was referenced by Koyoncu
et al. (2014) in this MSR.
65
Koyoncu et al. (2014) used the scales by Burke (1984), along with Noe (1988), to
measure three mentor functions. The three mentor functions were career development,
psychosocial, and role model. Koyoncu et al. (2014) reported results that tied the mentor
function to a protégé’s personal demographics. Koyoncu et al. (2014) found that
“younger respondents reported more psychosocial functions, … less educated
respondents reported more career development functions, ... [and] respondents earning
less reported more career development functions.” (Koyoncu et al., 2014, p. 12).
The fifth established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created by
Castro and Scandura (2004). Castro and Scandura (2004) measured mentoring
relationships by revising a scale by Scandura and Ragins (1993). The scale was revised
using three different studies. In study one, 169 university students were asked to judge
the wording of the scale. In study two, 474 MBA students were surveyed to test the
validity of the scale. From study two, a revised scale was created, which was used for
study three. Study three was conducted with 795 CPAs. The scale for study one and two
is shown, however the nine-item scale for study three is not. Those items were measured
on a scale, however Castro and Scandura (2004) do not define this scale. The non-revised
items were categorized into “career support”, “psychosocial support”, and “role
modeling” (Castro & Scandura, 2004, p. 30). Castro and Scandura (2004) was referenced
by Naim and Lenka (2017) in this MSR.
Naim and Lenka (2017) used Castro and Scandura (2004) to measure mentoring.
No changes to the scale by Castro and Scandura (2004) are reported. No results specific
to mentoring in general were reported.
66
The sixth established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Dreher and Ash (1990). Dreher and Ash (1990) measured the effects of mentoring and
gender on career outcomes. They originally used a sample of 440 American business
school graduates. The measure used a 5-item scale and asked “to what extent has a
mentor…” with responses from “1) to a small extent” to “5) to a very large extent”
(Dreher & Ash, 1990, p. 542). Sample behaviors asked were “…Given or recommended
you for challenging assignments that present opportunities to learn new skills”;
“…Helped you finish assignments/tasks or meet deadlines that otherwise would have
been difficult to complete”; and “…Shared personal experiences as an alternative
perspective to your problems” (Dreher & Ash, 1990, p. 542). Dreher and Ash (1990) was
referenced by Rueywei et al. (2014), Zhuang et al. (2013), and Srivastava and Thakur
(2013) in this MSR.
Rueywei et al. (2014) modified Dreher and Ash (1990) to measure mentor
functions of coaching, sponsorship and protection. Rueywei et al. (2014) used a five-
point scale from “1) never” to “5) always”. No specific results related to the three
functions of mentoring are reported. However, Rueywei et al. (2014) reported results on
the mediating effects of mentoring, personal learning and career success. The authors
stated, “For protégés, an increase in mentoring time provided them with a chance to
create a better career outcome than those who did not have as much in mentoring time.
This result indicates that the career outcome of the employees could be enhanced when
their personal learning was catalyzed by mentoring” (Rueywei et al., p. 495).
Zhuang et al. (2013) also modified the scale by Dreher and Ash (1990) to measure
career development, psychosocial and role modeling functions of mentoring. Zhuang et
67
al. (2013) used a five-item scale from “1) totally disagree” to “5) totally agree”. The
authors reported “when considering home and host country mentors as a whole,
mentors’psychosocial support can enhance expatriate protégés’ general adjustment in the
host country …, their role modeling functions can enhance expatriate protégé’s office
interaction adjustment in the host country … and their career development functions can
enhance expatriate protégé´s work adjustment in the host country” (Zhuang et al., 2013,
p. 45). The authors also reported that “the psychosocial support and role modeling
functions of home country mentors facilitate expatriates’ general adjustment and office
interaction adjustment better than those of host country mentors” (Zhuang et al., 2013, p.
45). Finally, they reported that “the career development functions of host country mentors
are more strongly related to expatriates’ work adjustment than those of home country
mentors” (Zhuang et al., 2013, p. 45).
Srivastava and Thakur (2013) used the scale by Dreher and Ash (1990) to
measure motivation to mentor. Srivastava and Thakur (2013) used a five-point scale from
“1) strongly disagree” to “5) strongly agree”. The results showed that “motivation to
mentor influences the performance significantly in formal mentoring, but in supervisory
mentoring motivation to mentor does not play any significant role in role based
performance.” (Srivastava & Thakur, 2013, p. 23). Secondly, the authors reported that
“motivation to mentor does not moderate the relationship between relational mentoring
and role based performance in both formal and supervisory mentoring” (Srivastava &
Thakur, 2013, p. 23).
The seventh established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Noe (1988). Noe (1988) measured job involvement, locus of control, career planning,
68
relationship importance, quality of interaction and amount of time spent with mentor,
gender composition of the mentoring dyad, and mentor functions across mutiple
dimensions. Noe (1988) asked twenty-nine items across the multiple mentor functions of
coaching, acceptance and confirmation, role model, counseling, protection, exposure and
visibility, sponsorship, challenging assignments, and friendship. Originally the scale was
used with 139 teachers across the United States, and 43 mentors for those teachers. Only
the full scale for mentoring functions was reported by Noe (1988). The surveys were
measured on a five-point scale from “1) to a very slight extent” to “5) to a very large
extent”. Noe (1988) was referenced by Arora and Rangnekar (2014), Grima et al. (2014),
Koyoncu et al. (2014), and Smith-Jenstch et al. (2014) in this MSR.
Arora and Rangnekar (2014) modified twenty-one items of the scale by Noe
(1988). The specific twenty-one items modified are not specified by the authors, however
it is reported that “fourteen items measured psychosocial mentoring and seven items
measured career mentoring” (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014, p. 211). They reported that
“career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring are strongly linked with each other”
(Arora & Rangnekar, 2014, p. 213). The authors also reported that “psychosocial
mentoring was moderately correlated with career resilience …and career mentoring
showed weak correlation with career resilience” (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014, p. 213).
Grima et al. (2014) took fifteen items from Noe (1988) to measure mentor activities. The
fifteen items were selected from the mentor functions of advice, exposure, role modelling
and coaching. Grima et al. (2014) used a five-point scale from “1) completely disagree”
to “5) completely agree” to measure results. They reported that “psychological support is
69
more closely associated with perceived benefits than career support.” (Grima et al., 2014,
p. 482).
Koyuncu et al. (2014) modified Noe (1988) to measure three mentor functions:
career development, psychosocial, and role model. They used a seven-point scale to
measure the extent the mentor engaged in each function. The authors reported
Women managers and professionals reporting higher levels of all three mentor
functions (career development, psychosocial, role model) indicated higher levels
of career satisfaction …; and women managers and professionals reporting higher
levels of role model also indicated higher levels of job satisfaction. …. In
addition, women managers and professionals reporting higher levels of career
development tended to also indicated higher levels of job satisfaction … and
women managers and professionals reporting higher levels of psychosocial
functions from their mentors tended to report lower levels of exhaustion.
(Koyuncu et al., 2014, p. 13).
Koyuncu et al. (2014) also reported that “mentor functions tended to have few
effects on work outcomes” (p. 14).
Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012) measured functional mentoring using 21 items from
Noe (1988). They used a six-point scale from “1) no extent” to “6) great extent” to
measure the items. The authors reported that “the more a supervisor was motivated to
mentor for intrinsic satisfaction, the stronger the positive relationship was between
protégés’ potential for advancement and the psychosocial support they reported
receiving” (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2012, p. 65).
70
The eighth established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Poteat et al. (2015). Poteat et al. (2015) measured relationship satisfaction and
mentor-protégé commitment. Originally, the scale was used with 97 pairs of doctoral
student proteges and their faculty mentors. No specific scale is reported by the authors.
Poteat et al. (2009) was referenced by Rogers et al. (2016) in this MSR.
Rogers et al. (2016) reported using Poteat et al. (2009) to measure mentor
commitment. One item they used to measure was “I was committed to developing an
effective and productive mentoring relationship” (Rogers et al., 2016, p. 215). The
authors used a five-point scale from “1) strongly disagree” to “5) strongly agree”.They
reported that “mentor commitment, which can be construed as a motivational force,
relates positively to mentoring effectiveness only if the mentor simultaneously possesses
a series of attributes, many of which can be viewed as abilities or skills” (Rogers et al.
,2016, p. 220).
The ninth established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Ragins and Scandura (1999). Ragins and Scandura (1999) measured costs and benefits
of mentoring using various factors. The factors under costs inlcuded more trouble than its
worth, dysfunctional relationship, nepotism, bad reflection, and energy drain. For
benefits, the factors included rewarding experience, improved job performance, loyal
base of support, recognition by others, and generativity. Originally, Ragins and Scandura
(1999) surveyed 275 high-ranking managers and executives. They used a seven-point
scale from “1) strongly disagree” to “7) strongly agree” in their measurement. Ragins and
Scandura (1999) was referenced by Grima et al. (2014) in this MSR.
71
Grima et al. (2014) measured benefits of mentoring using the scale by Ragins and
Scandura (1999). Grima et al. (2014) used a five-point scale from “1) completely
disagree” to “5) completely agree” to measure fifteen items from Ragins and Scandura
(1999): four items of rewarding experience, three for improved job performance, three for
recognition by others, and three for rejuvination. The results of Grima et al. (2014)
showed a reported link between many of the mentor functions and benefits of mentoring.
“Relationships existed between rewarding experience and improvement in performance,
between coaching and rejuvenation, between role modelling and rewarding experience
and between improvement in performance and rejuvenation” (Grima et al., 2014, p. 480).
The tenth established scale used to measure mentoring in this MSR was created
by Scandura and Ragins (1993). Scandura and Ragins (1993) measured mentor functions
using 15 items. Sample items include “mentor takes a personal interest in my career”;
“mentor gives me special coaching on the job”; and “I try to model my behavior after
mentor” (Scandura & Ragins, 1993, p. 257). Originally, the scale was used in a survey
with 800 CPAs in the United States. The actual scale available for respondents to use was
not reported by the authors. Scandura and Ragins (1993) was used by Cheng and Peng
(2016) in this MSR.
Cheng and Peng (2016) used Scandura and Ragins (1993) to measure mentor
functions. Cheng and Peng (2016) measured on a five-point scale from “1) strongly
disagree” to “5) strongly agree”. They reported that “mentoring functions satisfy
protégés’ demands for development because mentoring is a tool and strategy intended to
facilitate learning” (Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 214).
3.1.8.1 A summary of scales used to measure mentoring
72
The established scales used as a foundation for measuring mentoring in this MSR
focused on motivation to mentor (Allen, 2003), factors of mentor effectiveness (Allen &
Eby, 2003; Berk et al., 2005; Burke, 1984; Noe, 1988, Scandura & Ragins, 1993),
mentoring relationships (Castro & Scandura, 2004; Poteat et al., 2015), mentoring effects
on career outcomes (Dreher & Ash, 1990), costs and benefits of mentoring (Ragins &
Scandura, 1999). Allen (2003) and Alen and Eby (2003), Dreher and Ash (1990), and
Ragins and Scandura (1999) measured the mentor’s perspective of the mentoring
relationship. Berk et al. (2005), Burke (1984), Castro et al. (2004), and Scandura and
Ragins (1993) measured the mentor relationship from the protégé perspective. Noe
(1988), Poteat et al. (2015) measured the mentor relationship from both the mentor and
protégé’s perspective.
3.3 Research Question 1c: How do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring
programs?
Each qualitative study and the associated construct codes are shown in Table 15.
Both career success and mutual development are present in each study, while Janssen et
al. (2018) also explored other codes. Discussed below are the results of how each code is
assessed qualitatively in the studies in this MSR. Career resilience and protégé
satisfaction were not assessed qualitatively. The information below will discuss the two
articles that were qualitative studies only (Deptula & Williams, 2017; Janssen et al.,
2018) and the qualitative assessment studied in the mixed methods study by Srivastava
(2015). The section below will first discuss the two codes that appear in both articles,
career success and mutual development, then briefly describe the remaining codes.
73
Table 15 Qualitative articles and applied MSR Codes
Author CS EE MD PL PX
Deptula and Williams (2017) X X
Janssen et al.(2018) X X X X X
Srivastava (2015)
(as a mixed methods study)
X X X
Key:
CS= career success
EE= employee engagement
MD= mutual development
PL= personal learning
PX= professional exposure
3.3.2 Career success
Career Success is defined in Table 10 as when the protégé has achieved a high
level in [their] profession. Objective career success is observable success such as
promotion, seniority, salary, and increased responsibility (Judge et al., 1995; Nicholson,
2000, Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018, p. 118). Subjective career success is protégé
satisfaction for their current job and career. Examples of subjective career success are
development opportunities, happiness, work/life balance (Hall & Chandler, 2005, Bach
Ouerdian et al., 2018). The qualitative assessments in this MSR (Depulta & Williams,
2017; Janssen et al., 2018) used interviews to assess career performance, protégé
performance, increase in mentor skills, and length of the relationship.
Both quantitative articles mention objective career success. Deptula and Williams
(2017) mention that a mentor relationship can increase “information and unit
performance (p. 280).” Four of twenty-one participants, who were co-workers of a
mentoring dyad, in the study by Janssen et al. stated that mentoring can increase protégé
74
performance. They also state that mentoring can help the protégé “know their way around
the organization” (Janssen et al., 2018, p. 253). All 21 participants mentioned that the
mentors’ competency is increased through the mentor relationship. Neither qualitative
article documented specific interview questions to use to assess objective career success.
When discussing subjective career success, Janssen et al. (2018) stated that for the
mentor, “it is also good to practice leadership skills” (p. 253). The interviews with
coworkers of mentoring dyads in Janssen et al. (2018) revealed a barrier to supporting
career success in a mentor relationship. An undisclosed number of interviewees
mentioned that the close relationship may impede necessary feedback from being
provided to the protégé.
Subjective career success includes length of the mentor relationship. According to
Deptula and Williams (2017), successful mentoring relationships last for a long period of
time; the study specifically mentions examples of mentoring relationships from four to
more than eight years. Qualitative assessments of unit performance over time can
correlate to the career success process.
3.3.3 Employee engagement
Employee engagement is defined in Table 10 as the elements of a protégé’s job
that encourage their personal growth and learning (Welsh & Dixon, 2016). Janssen et al.
(2018) assessed employee engagement themes such as positive work attitudes, happy and
relaxed work environment, and engaged older employees. Janssen et al. (2018)
specifically report that "the positive work attitudes of mentors and protégés and their
high-quality relationships contribute to a happy and relaxed work environment" (p. 259).
One participant in the study had this to say about mentoring and older employees: “Older
75
employees are sometimes a little bit stuck, so to encourage knowledge sharing, mentoring
should be incorporated in an organization’s policy (male, age 36, health care)" (Janssen et
al., 2018, p. 258). Barriers to employee engagement of the coworkers of mentoring dyads
were expressed in this study. Coworkers “felt excluded by the mentor and protégé”,
“have distrust for the mentor because they believe they share everything”, and “were
envious about the subgroup formed by the mentor and protégé” (Janssen et al., 2018, p.
259).
3.3.4 Mutual development
Both qualitative articles, and the qualitative portion of Srivastava (2015) mention
mutual development. Assessments around mutual development that are assessed
qualitatively include time to complete tasks together, amount of work done as a team, and
knowledge created as a team. For this study, mutual development is defined as the
synergistic power of the mentoring relationship which allows the pair to work
collaboratively to achieve more goals, generate more knowledge and access more
resources as a pair than they could individually (Deptula & Williams, 2017).
One item assessed qualitatively is increased performance as a team. According to
Deptula and Williams (2017), mentoring dyads increase performance when there are non-
overlapping skills. Janssen et al. (2018) talks about the pair increasing knowledge
creation and sharing. Deptula and Williams (2017) also mention that mentoring dyads
work when they find a common purpose that “enables members to work collaboratively
until goals are achieved” (p. 382). Srivastava (2015) assessed mutual development in the
qualitative portion of his mixed methods study by asking an interview question “Do you
76
believe [you/your protégé] changed personally or professionally as a result of the
experience? If so, how?” (p. 449).
One potential barrier to mutual development is the time to complete tasks. This is
illustrated by the following quote: “sometimes I’m wondering why they do things
together and not solo. I mean, they are both highly paid professionals and now it costs
twice as much because they do their jobs together (male, age 27, government)." (Janssen
et al., 2018, p 257).
3.3.5 Personal learning
Personal learning is defined as the protégé acquiring “the skills, knowledge or
competence that contribute to career outcomes” (Rueywei et al.., 2014, p. 489) in Table
10. In Janssen et al. (2018), study participants reported experiencing mentoring
relationships as a facilitator with potential barriers to personal learning. On the positive
side, one participant said,
I think that especially for employees who are not that experienced in a certain
field…I think it’s very helpful then to learn from someone who is more experienced. I
think that works better than learning it from theory (Female, age 25, health care) (Janssen
et al., 2018, p. 255).
A potential barrier to personal learning mentioned in Janssen et al. (2018) was the
concern that feedback was not given: “Participants worried that the close bond between
mentor and protégé can impede critical feedback” (p. 256).
77
3.3.6 Protégé satisfaction
Table 10 defines protégé satisfaction as protégés that are satisfied with their mentor and
the mentor experience. The articles in this study do not show that organizations are
measuring protégé satisfaction
3.3.7 Professional exposure
Professional exposure is defined in Table 10 as when the “visibility of the
protégé in the enterprise” (Grima et al., 2014, p. 471) is increased through job
assignments and interactions with influencers. One assessment of professional exposure
that was assessed qualitatively is the protégé’s power: Participants in Janssen et al. (2018)
“believed that the protégé may have access to information via the mentor, which may
give the protégé then more power in the organization than non-protégés" (p 260). Janssen
et al. also show that the power can manifest itself in decision-making processes. This can
be used to the coworker’s advantage as expressed by one participant: “I would express
my opinion … [to the] mentor or protégé about that, and get their approval. … [then] I
already have them on my side” (Janssen et al., 2018, p. 261). However, mentoring can
also be a barrier to the protégé’s strong decision-making. One participant stated, “I’m not
sure she is able to make decisions on her own, without falling back on her mentor”
(Janssen et al., 2018, p. 261).
Secondly, organizations can assess interpersonal risk taking qualitatively. Janssen
et al. (2018) state that the mentor dyad’s coworkers told them “the protégé knows that the
mentoring relationship is safe for interpersonal risk taking and that it is allowed to make
mistakes, which will improve the protégé functioning” (p. 256). In the qualitative portion
of the mixed methods study by Srivastava (2015), interview questions were asked to
78
assess professional exposure, which was the focus of the study. Questions included: “Did
participating in the program affect the size or composition of your network in the
organization?;” “Did your mentor introduce you to any of his/her contacts?”; and “Did
[you/your protégé] form any relationships as an indirect result of the program?”
(Srivastava, 2015, p. 449).
3.3.8 A summary of qualitative assessments
In summary, the qualitative studies in this thesis showed that organizations are
assessing career success and professional exposure of the protégé and mutual
development of the mentoring pair qualitatively. Additionally, Janssen et al. (2018)
reveal many assessments of employee engagement in the quotes from the participants.
While other themes are also mentioned in Janssen et al. (2018), like personal learning and
professional exposure, no other of the codes in this thesis are conclusively shown to be
assessed qualitatively.
79
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 RQ1a What are the assessed outcomes of mentoring programs?
Chapter 1 discusses three benefits of a mentoring relationship to the participants::
onboarding, retention and career advancement. For an organization, the benefits of a
mentoring include increased communication channels, knowledge sharing, teamwork and
development of leaders.. Through the coding done in this MSR, the researcher found that
the mentoring outcomes being measured and assessed align with the mentoring benefit.
80
Table 16 describes the following outcome links. Outcomes that relate to personal
learning and professional exposure link to onboarding; outcomes related to career
resilience, employee engagement and protégé satisfaction link to employee retention;
career success, mutual development, personal learning and professional exposure link to
career advancement. For the organization, professional exposure links to communication;
career success and personal learning link to knowledge sharing; mutual development and
professional exposure link to teamwork; and career success and professional exposure
link to developing leaders.
Thirteen of the articles in this MSR directly measured the outcomes of career
success and professional exposure. All the remaining codes from Table 10 appeared in
less than half of the MSR studies. Protégé satisfaction was measured the least, appearing
in two studies.
81
Table 16 Mentor benefits linked to outcomes
Participant
Outcomes
Socialization and
Onboarding
Personal Learning Strong outcomes
Professional Exposure Mixed outcomes
Retention at an
organization
Career Resiliance Strong outcomes
Employee Engagement Strong outcomes
Protégé Satisfaction Weak outcomes
Career
Advancement
Career Success Mixed outcomes
Mutual Development Mixed outcomes
Personal Learning Strong outcomes
Professional Exposure Mixed outcomes
Organizational
Outcomes
Communication
Channels
Professional Exposure Mixed outcomes
Knowledge
Career Success Mixed outcomes
Personal Learning Strong outcomes
Teamwork
Mutual Development Mixed outcomes
Profressional
Expsosure
Mixed outcomes
Developing leaders
Career Success Mixed routcomes
Professional Exposure Mixed outcomes
In each of the seven codes derived from the articles in this MSR, outcomes were
reported. A discussion of the methods to get to these outcomes is written in Chapter 3. A
summary of the conclusions across the MSR studies follows.
82
4.1.1 Career Resilience
The articles discussing career resilience reached the following conclusions. The
mentoring function of psychosocial mentoring (defined in Table 3) affects a protégé’s
ability to demonstrate career resilience (Arora & Rangnekar, 2014; Zhuang et al., 2013).
However, the career mentoring function (defined in Table 3) received mixed results:
Arora and Rangnekar (2014) stated that career mentoring does not affect career
resilience; but Zhuang et al. (2013) reported that career mentoring does help protégé
adjustment to their new work environment. Farnese et al. (2017) concluded that
mentoring helps reduce burnout. Farnese et al. also concluded that mentoring helps
employees cope with stressful situations. Finally, Naim and Lenka (2017) concluded that
mentoring, especially the psychosocial function, results in employees being more willing
to stay. Overall, the studies report that both the career and psychosocial functions of
mentoring equips a protégé with the ability to be resilient in their career, and therefore
impact the organization long-term.
4.1.2 Career Success
The articles discussing career success reached the following conclusions. The
psychosocial function of mentoring is reported to move objective career success into
subjective career success (Bach Ouerdian et al., 2018; Grima et al., 2014). However,
career mentoring is not shown to move objective career success to subjective career
success (Bach Ouerdien et al., 2018).In other words, an employee who has success on the
job will feel good about their success when they have the additional psychosocial support
provided by the relationship with a mentor.
83
With regard to how close the mentor and protégé are within the organizational
structure, Holtbrügge & Ambrosius (2015) reported that objective career success (termed
“skill development”) is more effective when the mentor and protégé are from different
areas of the organization (termed as “organizational closeness” or “organizational
distance”).
The articles in this MSR also reported specific information about objective career
success. Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018) concluded that both the career function and
psychosocial function have a positive impact on objective career success. However, Bach
Ouerdian et al., also state that the career function of mentoring is more impactful on the
career success of women, while the psychosocial function of mentoring is more impactful
on men. Grima et al. (2014) stated it a different way: career advice and role modelling by
the mentor do lead to improved job performance for the protege and are a rewarding
activity for the mentor.
The benefit of mentoring in the onboarding process is discussed in terms of career
success in these articles as well. Holtbrügge and Ambrosius (2015) concluded that skill
development is a bridge between mentoring and career development. Skill development
starts in the onboarding process. They also concluded that the career planning of the
protégé should involve the mentor, as a way to enhance skill development (Holtbrügge
and Ambrosius, 2015). Farnese et al. (2017) concluded that mentoring helps protégés
during the onboarding process learn the organizational rules and goals, and helps
establish effective work relationships. A mentor also lessens a protégés’ undesirable
behaviors and habits (Cheng and Peng, 2016), which can begin during onboarding.
84
Finally, the articles in this MSR reported specific information about subjective
career success as well, however the conclusions about the impact of mentoring on
subjective career success are mixed. Bach Ouerdian et al. (2018) could not verify that
career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring act positively on subjective career success
but were able to show that there was at least some impact. The study stated that men feel
more satisfied with their careers because of the mentoring they receive; women are
concluded to not have the same benefit. Subjectively, employees trust those in authority
(including mentors) who are personally involved in their career path (Arora &
Rangnekar, 2014). Finally, Grima et al. (2014), who address the outcomes of mentoring
from the mentor’s perspective, stated that informal mentoring leads to subjective career
success of the mentor more than formal mentoring. They also stated that being a role
model and mentor also proves to be rewarding, rejuvenating and leads to improved
performance. Grima et al. finally cautioned that “the mentor runs the risk of over-
soliciting his contacts within the organization (sic.) at his own personal cost” (p. 482).
4.1.3 Employee Engagement
The articles discussing employee engagement reached the following conclusions.
Cheng and Peng (2016) focused on mentoring in relation to job embeddedness and
organizational identification. Job embeddedness is defined as “the combined forces (fit,
links and sacrifice) that keep a person from leaving his or her job (Yao, Lee, Mitchell,
Burton, & Sablynski, 2004, p. 159)” (as cited by Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 203).
Mentoring leads to stronger job embeddedness (Cheng & Peng, 2016). Organizational
identification is defined as “a perceived oneness with an organization and the experience
of the organizations’ successes and failures as one’s own” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p.
85
103)” (as cited by Cheng & Peng, 2016, p. 204). Cheng and Peng conclude that protégés
with a mentor are “more likely to develop their attitudes and behaviors consistent with
organizations requirements and hence feel high organizational identification” (p. 204).
Farnese et al. (2017) concluded that mentoring helps prevent “distant and disengaged”
attitudes toward work (p. 327). Grima et al. (2014) concluded that being a mentor
rejuvenates the mentor. These outcomes all contribute to protégés remaining on the job.
4.1.4 Personal Learning
Personal learning can benefit the protégé, especially during onboarding. The
articles discussing personal learning reached the following conclusions. Farnese et al.
(2017) reported a direct correlation between mentoring and the protégé’s growth,
specifically in learning the values, goals and protocols of the organization. Holtbrügge
and Ambrosius (2015) discussed the impact of organizational distance and the person
who selected the mentor on the protégé’s learning. They concluded that greater
organizational distance between the mentor and protégé leads to stronger protégé skill
development; however, the organizational distance of the person who selects the mentor
has no impact on the protégé’s skill development. Overall, Holtbrügge and Ambrosius
concluded that skill development is an important outcome of mentoring. Rueywei et al.
(2014) also concluded that skill development was increased by mentoring in their study.
Welsh and Dixon (2016) focused on the skill development of protégés and the
relationship to development of competency. They concluded that the skill practice offered
in mentoring increases the protégé’s competencies. Specifically, they reported that
“development was maximized when the [protégés] quickly implemented or practiced
86
what they learned” (Welsh & Dixon, 2016, p. 242). Srivastava and Thakur (2013)
concluded that relational mentoring and personal learning go hand in hand.
Three studies approached the personal learning of the protégé from the mentors’
perspective (Rogers et al., 2016 Smith-Jentsch et al., 2012; Zhenyuan et al., 2016).
Rogers et al. (2016) reported that mentors who are “centered upon attaining competence
in situations of performance and learning [aka learning goal orientation]” (p. 214)
increased mentor effectiveness. Smith-Jentsch et al. (2012) reported that mentoring
quality is better if the mentor believes the protégé has growth potential. Zhenyuan et al.
(2016) concluded that mentor quality was related to the mentor’s knowledge sharing,
which leads to a protégé’s learning. Knowledge sharing is one of the benefits of
mentoring and is confirmed by these studies.
4.1.5 Protégé Satisfaction
While protégé satisfaction was somewhat measured in the studies used in this
MSR, no quantitative studies come to any actual conclusions tied to protégé satisfaction.
4.1.6 Professional Exposure
Professional exposure can benefit a protégé, especially during onboarding.
Professional exposure also benefits an organization by making sure knowledge is shared
throughout the organization. The articles discussing professional exposure reached the
following conclusions. Farnese et al. (2017) and Srivastava (2015) both reported that
mentoring increases a protégé’s workplace network. Srivastava (2015) concluded that
access to influential professionals, participation on project teams, enhanced social skills,
and the validation that comes from having a mentor relationship are all benefits that
expand the protégé’s network. Srivastava reported that the initial benefits of mentoring
87
are more pronounced for women. However, the effect is lessened as the protégé gains a
foothold within their organization: “as women gained legitimacy through their own
contributions during their time in the organization, they appeared to benefit less from the
signal of being affiliated with a respected senior person” (Srivastava, 2015, p. 445).
Zhuang et al. (2013) and Rogers et al. (2016) both reported benefits to the protégé of
having mentors, including multiple mentor networks. Lyle and Smith (2014) also
reported that the amount of time spent with a high-quality mentor leads to a better chance
for promotion as a protégé, which they further state demonstrates the benefit of an
increased network. However, Lyle and Smith also reported that having multiple mentors
does not increase this benefit. That conclusion contradicts Zhuang et al. (2013) who
concluded that multiple mentor networks may increase protégé adjustment. Grima et al.
(2014) reported both that mentoring does not promote the social network of the mentor
and that the mentor risks over-using his network. However, they also state that their own
research is limited due to the age of a mentor, explaining that older employees (the
average age was 38), may not see as many benefits from professional exposure.
4.2 RQ1b What quantitative measures and scales do organizations use to assess
mentoring programs
Two quantitative studies (Lyle & Smith, 2014; Makokha et al., 2014) used extant
data to measure job performance and career success. Fifteen of the qualitative
measurement studies in this MSR, as well as the quantitative portion of Srivastava
(2015), compiled their results by using surveys with Likert scales. Most of the established
scales used to form the surveys were not about mentoring. However, the researchers used
these surveys, many in combination with established scales about mentoring, to create
88
unique surveys for their research. For example, Cheng and Peng (2016) created their
survey using items from four unrelated established scales (Bennet & Robinson, 2000;
Crossley et al., 2007; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Ayree et al., 1999), and then measured the
effect of mentoring in their unique survey by using the scale created by Scandura and
Ragans (1993).
The researcher defined seven codes for mentor measurement (Table 10). Eleven
of the quantitative articles in this MSR measured some element of professional exposure;
ten of the articles measured elements of career success. Less than half of the articles
measured any one of the remaining five codes (career resilience, employee engagement,
mutual development, personal learning, protégé satisfaction). Nine quantitative studies in
this MSR used established scales to measure mentoring and mentoring functions in
general, listed in Table 14. Common among many of the general mentoring scales was
the focus on the career development and psychosocial mentor functions as defined by
Kram (1983). Details of the individual scales used are discussed in Chapter 3.
4.3 RQ1c how do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring programs?
Both qualitative studies (Deptula & Williams, 2017; Janssen et al., 2018) and the
qualitative portion of Srivastava (2015) used interviews to assess mentoring impacts.
Deptula and Williams (2017) focused their interviews on assessing the impact of the
mentoring dyad as a unit. Janssen et al. (2018) assessed “coworkers’ perceptions and
experiences of informal mentoring relationships” (p. 245). Srivastava (2015) used
interviews to assess “the effects of formal mentoring on formal networks” (p. 427). The
results of all three studies discussed career success and mutual development.
Additionally, Janssen et al. (2018) revealed outcomes regarding employee engagement
89
and personal learning. Janssen et al. (2018) and Srivastava (2015) also revealed both
positive and negative professional exposure outcomes.
In the category of career success, all three studies concluded that mentoring does
positively impact a protégé’s performance and knowledge. Deptula and Williams (2017)
concluded that mentoring increases performance and information, especially when the
skill set of the mentor and protégé are diverse but complement each other. Similarly,
Janssen et al. (2018) concluded that having a mentor enhanced management competency.
Srivastava (2015) concluded that mentoring does help increase the protégé’s knowledge
of how to find information. A conclusion can be made that the impact of mentoring on
career performance can be assessed by interview, especially over time. Deptula and
Williams (2017) stated that mentoring in a synergistic relationship takes time, but also
turns into a beneficial long-term relationship, aligning with the four mentor stages
discussed by Kram (1983).
However, Janssen et al. (2018) stated that increasing competencies do not
necessarily lead to increased performance. Additionally, the interviewees also stated that
the close bond between the mentor and protégé can keep the mentor from providing
feedback to help the protégé improve performance. Respondents also believed that the
protégé and mentor relationship takes a lot of effort, workload and time for the mentor
(Janssen et al., 2018). Srivastava (2015) concluded in his study that the benefit of having
a mentor decreased as the protégé’s success increased.
In the category of mutual development, both Deptula and Williams (2017) and
Janssen et al. (2018) showed mixed results from the mentoring/protégé dyad. One
desirable outcome of the relationship is that a mentoring dyad empowers mentors and
90
protégés to have the courage to speak up. Deptula and Williams conclude that mentoring
dyads act as a coalition when there is a common goal, and when they work on each
other’s developmental goals and career objectives. However, there also are undesirable
outcomes from the mentor relationship. The study by Janssen et al. specifically reported
some respondents’ unfavorable opinions. Protégés may copy their mentor’s work style
instead of developing their own habits. Another respondent stated that the mentor
relationship doesn’t appear to be good use of company resources: “Sometimes I’m
wondering why they do things together and not solo. I mean, they are both highly paid
professionals and now it costs twice as much because they do their jobs together (male,
age 27, government)” (Janssen et al., 2018, p. 257).
Srivastava (2015) specifically reported four categories of a mentor and protégé
relationship that contribute to increased professional exposure: “Access to influential
organizational actors”, “participation in semiformal foci (e.g. work groups and project
teams)”, “enhanced social skills”, and “legitimacy-enhancing skills” (p. 436 – 437).
Srivastava recorded many examples of beneficial outcomes in his study, including
expanding social network by interaction with the mentor’s network, additional help in
preparing for proposals and presentations, increased confidence in connecting to people
who the protégé does not know. Janssen et al. (2018) reported that mentoring provides a
safe space for interpersonal risk. Respondents also stated that the protégé has more power
in the organization because of the mentor relationship (Janssen et al., 2018).
The three studies in the MSR that used qualitative methods to assess mentoring
impacts (Deptula & Williams, 2017; Janssen et al., 2018; Srivastava, 2015) all utilized
interviews to gather data. All three studies focused on aspects of the impact of the mentor
91
relationship, including network size (Srivastava, 2015), the power of the mentoring dyad
(Deptula & Williams, 2017), and coworkers’ perception of the mentor/protégé
relationship (Janssen et al., 2018).
4.4 Implications for organizations
The articles in this MSR show that measurements and assessments can be used to
demonstrate the effectiveness of mentoring on the outcomes of onboarding, retention and
career success. Surveys and interviews designed to capture personal learning and
employee engagement tie to onboarding. Employee engagement and career resilience tie
to retention. Career advancement ties directly to career success and mutual development.
Organizational strategic knowledge ties to personal learning and professional exposure.
Secondly, the articles in this study show that the specific outcomes of mentoring
vary greatly from organization to organization. When organizations choose to implement
a mentor program, consideration should be given to the outcomes desired so that
measurements and assessments can be designed that align with the goals.
4.5 Implications for future research
Future research should be done to tie the outcomes of mentoring within the seven
codes (Table 10) to specific business results. Each research goal is an opportunity to
design a new survey, however, the foundation of surveys about mentoring is well-
established as shown in Table 14. Because the outcomes of mentoring cover a wide
range, survey items can be derived from many sources, not just surveys related to
mentoring.
92
4.6 Limitations
There are several limitations to the conclusions from this MSR. First, none of
these studies were completed by the organizations directly. Instead, they were completed
by outside researchers. Nevertheless, the data evaluated provide a framework for how
organizations should be evaluating and assessing mentoring programs. Second, fourteen
articles studied international audiences, four were based in the United States, and two
were not specified. Many studies based in international settings, including Farnese et al.
(2017), Bach-Ouerdian et al. (2018), Cheng and Peng (2016), and Grima et al. (2014) all
reported the limitation that their results apply to specific cultural and organizational
contexts, and should not be generalized to other situations. Therefore, while this MSR
compiled results across multiple studies, each individual organization setting needs to be
analyzed separately, since results may vary. Third, many of the study populations used
by the article researchers were completed by convenience samples or were selected by
company management or by Human Resource departments. Many articles mention that
the sample was limited. Like the cultural contexts, the limited sample size and selection
methods mean the individual study results may not be translatable to larger settings, but
the compilation of results by the researching in an MSR points to trends to follow,
however each population will have its own unique characteristics.
Fourth, all the articles in this study were about traditional mentoring relationships.
A traditional mentoring relationship is one where the activity of advising someone with
less experience (Table 3) is guided by a more experienced, longer tenured employee.
However, outcomes from other models of mentoring, like reverse mentoring, were not
93
studied. These less-traditional mentor relationships may lead to different outcomes that
should be explored.
Fifth, results from fifteen of seventeen of the quantitative articles were based on
self-report surveys. The qualitative studies as well were mainly self-report of perceptions
of mentoring. More hard data, like salary records, would provide further insights into the
success of mentoring programs.
Sixth, all studies in this MSR are from 2012 or later. While this provides insight
into the recent measurement of mentoring outcomes, long-term trends may have been
missed. A more extensive timeframe could be studied to look for constants across time in
mentoring outcomes.
Seventh, nineteen of the twenty articles in this study studied formal mentoring
programs. Only Janssen et al. (2018) researched informal mentoring. Informal mentoring
outcomes are more difficult to measure because the relationships are not monitored by
the organization. Any informal mentoring relationship would be self-reported. Future
studies of informal mentoring results within an organization could provide a more
complete picture of the outcomes and impacts of mentoring within an organization.
Finally, all steps of this MSR were completed by a single researcher, under
advisement of his thesis advisor. No electronic system was used, outside of recording
data in Excel and using the built-in remove duplicates function. The limitation of a single
researcher means that mistakes in include and exclude decisions could be made
throughout the process, either by mis-reading information or applying a bias into the
interpretation of an article abstract. These mistakes could eliminate an article that should
have been included or include an article that should have been eliminated. These
94
limitations could be removed by using more technological methods of include and
exclude decisions or by using consensus among multiple researchers in the MSR article
selection process.
4.7 Conclusion
The desired benefits and the expense of formal mentoring programs show the
importance of evaluating the outcomes. This MSR researched how organizations assess
the outcomes of mentoring program. Three sub-questions were researched to provide the
details to the primary question: what are the assessed outcomes of mentoring programs;
what quantitative measures and scales do organizations use to assess mentoring
programs; how do organizations qualitatively assess mentoring programs?
The outcomes evaluated by the studies in this MSR centered on seven main
themes (Table 10): career resilience, career success, employee engagement, mutual
development, personal learning, protégé satisfaction and professional exposure.
Mentoring was successfully measured quantitatively primarily by using surveys of the
mentor program participants, as well as organizational leaders. Survey questions came
from established scales about mentoring, but also established scales used to explore other
workplace outcomes, like burnout, employee engagement and adjustment to new
situations. Extant data was also used to measure career success by reviewing job
promotion records and work quality.
Quantitatively, interviews were used to assess the impact of mentoring, especially
on the impact of mentoring on career success, the mutual development of the mentoring
dyad, and the impact on the protégé’s professional exposure (size of network of influence
and organizational political skill) successfully using quantitative methods. Interviews
95
were conducted with both participants in mentor programs as well as coworkers of the
mentor program participants.
When determining what to evaluate, an organization needs to consider which
outcomes to focus on then align their study to those specific themes, as the studies in this
MSR have modeled. Rather than focusing on only the quality of the mentoring
experience or satisfaction with mentoring, evaluation should focus tying the mentoring
experience to outcomes like job satisfaction, level of employee engagement, and
adjustment to new job environments to show the organizational impact of a formal
mentor program.
96
REFERENCES
Albescu, F., Pugna, I., & Paraschiv, D. (2008). Business intelligence and knowledge
management - technological support for strategic management in the knowledge
based economy. Revista Informatica Economica, 48(4), 5 - 12.
Allen, T. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 62(1), 134 - 154. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(02)00046-5
Allen, T., & Eby, L. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: factors associated
with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 24(4), 469 - 486.
doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00021-7
Allen, T., Eby, L., & Lentz, E. (2006). The relationship between formal mentoring
program characteristics and percieved program effectiveness. Personnel
Psychology, 59(1), 125-153. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00747.x
Anakwe, U., & Greenhaus, J. (1999). Effective socialization of employers: Socialization
content perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11(3), 315-329.
Arora , R., & Rangnekar, S. (2014). Workplace mentoring and career resilience: An
empirical test. Psychologist-Manager Journal (American Psychological
Association), 17(3), 205-220. doi:10.1037/mgr0000021
Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among
Chinese employees. Journal of Organizatonal Behavior, 20(5), 563 - 576.
doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199909)20:5%3C563::aid-job890%3E3.0.co;2-#
Association for Talent Development. (2017). 2017 state of the industry. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Talent Development. Retrieved from www.td.org
Aylward, B., Odar, C., Kessler, E., Canter, K., & Roberts, M. (2012). Six degrees of
separation: An exploratory network analysis of mentoring relationships in
97
pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37(9), 972-979.
doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jss078
Bach Ouerdian, E., Malek, A., & Dali, N. (2018). L'effet du mentorat sur la réussite de
carrière : quelles différences entre hommes et femmes? [The effect of mentoring
on career success: What are the differences between men and women?]. Relations
Industrielles [Industrial Relations], 73(1), 117-145.
Bachner-Melman, R., Bacon-Shnoor, N., Zohar, A., Elizur, Y., & Ebstein, R. (2009). The
psychometric properties of the revised self-monitoring scale (RSMS) and the
concern for appropriateness scale (CAS) in Hebrew. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 25, 8 - 15. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.8
Barthalus, T. (2015). Management influence on bank tellers’ voluntary turnover and
affective organzational commitment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Maryland University College.
Beecroft, P., Santner, S., Lacy, M., Kunzman, L., & Dorey, F. (2006). New graduate
nurses’ perceptions of mentoring: six-year programme evaluation. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 55(6), 736-747. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03964.x
Beltman, S., & Schaeben, M. (2012). Institution-wide peer mentoring: Benefits for
mentors. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(2), 33-44.
doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i2.124
Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Jouirnal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349 - 360. doi:10.1037//0021-
9010.85.3.349
Bergelson, M. (2014). Developing tomorrow's leaders: Innovative approaches to
mentorship. People & Strategy, 37(2), 18-22.
Berk, R., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo, T. (2005). Measuring the
effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80, 66 - 71.
doi:10.1097/00001888-200501000-00017
98
Black, J., & Gregerson, H. (1991). Antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment for
expatriates in pacific rim assignments. Human Relations, 44(5), 497 - 515.
doi:10.1177/001872679104400505
Black, J., & Stephens, G. (1989). The Influence of the spouse on American expatriate
adjustment and Intent to stay in pacific rim overseas assignments. Journal of
Management, 15(4), 529 - 544. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500403
Blake-Beard, S. D. (2001). Taking a hard look at formal mentoring programs: A
consideration of the potential challenges facing women. Journal of Management
Development, 20(4), 331-345. doi:10.1108/02621710110388983
Bock, G., Zmud, R., Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social–
psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 34, 87 - 111.
doi:10.2307/25148669
Bolino, M., & Turnley, W. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations:
A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational
Research Methods, 2(2), 187 - 207. doi:10.1177/109442819922005
Bolino, M., Varela, J., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. (2006). The impact of impression-
management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior(27), 281 - 297. doi:10.1002/job.379
Borgogni, L., Consiglio, C., Alessandri, G., & Schaufeli, W. (2012). “Don’t throw the
baby out with the bathwater!” Interpersonal strain at work and burnout. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 875 - 898.
doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.598653
Boswell, W., & Boudreau, J. (2001). How leading companies create, measure and
achieve strategic results through 'line of sight'. Management Decision, 39, 851 -
859. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006525
Bourke, L., Waite, C., & Wright, J. (2014). Mentoring as a retention strategy to sustain
the rural and remote health workforce. The Australian Journal of Rural Health,
22(1), 2-7. doi:10.1111/ajr.12078
99
Boyd, A., Blue, Y., & Im, S. (2017). Evaluation of academic library residency programs
in the United States for librarians of color. College and Research Libraries, 78(4),
472. doi:10.5860/crl.78.4.472
Britton, J. J. (2015). Expanding the coaching conversation: Group and team coaching.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(3), 116-120. doi:10.1108/ICT-10-2014-
0070
Brodsky, S. (2004). Ingratiation. In S. Brodsky (Ed.), Coping with cross-examination and
other pathways to effective testimony (pp. 134 - 137). American Psychological
Association.
Bruce, C., Miller, S., & Zimmerman, J. (2015). A qualitative study exploring moral
distress in the icu team: The importance of unit functionality and intrateam
dynamics. Critical Care Medicine, 43(4), 823-831.
doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000822
Bryant, A., Brody, A., Perez, A., Shillam, C., Edelman, L., Bond, S., . . . Siegel, E.
(2015). Development and implementation of a peer mentoring program for early
career gerontological faculty. Journal of Nursing Scholarship: An Official
Publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing / Sigma
Theta Tau, 47(3), 258-266. doi:10.1111/jni.12135
Buck, M. A. (2004). Mentoring: A promising strategy for creating and sustaining a
learning organization. Adult Learning, 15(3), 8-11.
Burke, R. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 9, 353 -
372. doi:10.1177/105960118400900304
Burke, R. (1991). Early work and career experiences of female and male managers and
professionals: reasons for optimism? Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 8, 224 - 230. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.1991.tb00565.x
Carson, K., & Bedeian, A. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure and
examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44,
237 - 262. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1017
100
Castro, S., & Scandura, T. (2004). The tale of two measures: Evaluation and comparison
of Scandura’s (1992) and Ragins and McFarlin’s (1990) mentoring measures.
Southern Management Association Meeting.
Chao, G., O'Leary-Kelly, A., Wolf, S., Klein, H., & Gardner, P. (1994). Organizational
socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5),
730 - 743. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.79.5.730
Chen, J., Giacumo, L., & Sequinot-Cruz, A. (2017). Mentoring, workplace learning, and
performance improvement. Evidence, evaluation, and research methods updates
from a multiple studies review. Association for Educational and Communications
and Technology International Convention. Las Vegas: unpublished.
Cheng, C., & Peng, W. (2016). The effect of mentoring on protégé s' organizational
deviance. Psychological Reports, 119(1), 200-220.
doi:10.1177/0033294116659456
Chevalier, R. (2003). Updating the behavior engineering model. Performance
Improvement, 42(5), 8-14. doi:10.1002/pfi.4930420504
Chun, J., Sosik, J., & Yun, N. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé
outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
33, 1071-1094. doi:10.1002.job.1781
Clutterbuck, D. (2008). What's happening in coaching and mentoring? And what is the
difference between them? Development and Learning in Organizations: An
International Journal, 22(4), 8-10. doi:10.1108/14777280810886364
Coach. (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/coach
Cowan, S. (2010). Mentoring. In R. Watkins, & D. Leigh, Handbook of Improving
Performance in the Workplace (Vol. 2, pp. 613-645). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Crossley, C., Bennett, R., Jex, S., & Burnfield, J. (2007). Development of a global
measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of
voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031 - 1042.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1031
101
Currivan, D. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 495
- 524. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00031-5
D'Ambra, A., & Andrews, D. (2014). Incivility, retention and new graduate nurses: An
integrated review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(6), 735-
742. doi:10.1111/jonm.12060
DeCuir-Gunby, J., Marshall, P., & McCulloch, A. (2011). Developing and using a
codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional
development research project. Field Methods, 22(2), 136-155.
doi:10.1177/1525822X10388468
Deptula, B., & Williams, E. (2017). An intersubjective perspective on the role of
communal sharing in synergistic co-mentoring: Implications for human resource
development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(3), 369-400.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.21287
Doucet, S., Andrews, C., Lauckner, H., Nasser, S., & Godden-Webster, A. (2012). The
dalhousie health mentors program: Introducing students to collaborative
patient/client-centered practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26(4), 336-
338. doi:10.3109/13561820.2012.680631
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31 - 47.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2003.10.003
Dreher, G., & Ash, R. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women
in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 539 - 546. doi:bc46xj
Dunham-Taylor, J., Lynn, C., Moore, P., McDaniel, S., & Walker, J. (2008). What goes
around comes around: Improving faculty retention through more effective
mentoring. Journal of Professional Nursing, 24(6), 337-346.
102
EBSCO Information Services. (2018a). academic search premeir. Retrieved from
EBSCO Information Services: https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-
databases/academic-search-premier
EBSCO Information Services. (2018b). business source premeir. Retrieved from EBSCO
Information Services: https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-
databases/business-source-premier
Eby, L., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protégés’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in
formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67(3), 441-458. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.002
Efron , E., Winter, J., & Bressman, S. (2012). Toward a more effective mentoring model:
An innovative program of collaboration. Journal of Jewish Education, 78(4), 331-
361. doi:10.1080/15244113.2012.734431
Ehrich, L., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2003). Mentoring in medical contexts. British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference (p. Unpublished).
Edinburgh, Scotland: Heriot-Watt University. Retrieved from eprints.qut.edu.au
Ehrich, L., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education
and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(4), 518-540.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(5), 812 - 820. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
Eshner, E., Craig, T., & Murphy, S. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and
peer mentoring on protégé's support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career
success: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology,
15(3), 419 - 438.
Farnese, M., Barbieri, B., Bello, B., & Bartone, P. (2017). Don't abandon hope all ye who
enter here: The protective role of formal mentoring and learning processes on
burnout in correctional officers. Work, 58(3), 319-331. doi:10.3233/WOR-172628
103
Ferris, G., Treadway, D., Kolodinsky, R., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., Douglas, C., &
Frink, D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory.
Journal of Management, 31, 126 - 152. doi:10.1177/0149206304271386
Flieg-Palmer, M., r, & Rathert, C. (2015). Interpersonal mentoring and its influence on
retention of valued health care workers. Health Care Management Review, 40(1),
56 - 64. doi:10.1097/hmr.0000000000000011
Foss, N. (2002). 'Coase vs. hayek': economic organization and the knowledge economy.
International Journal of the Economics of Business, 9(1), 9 - 35.
doi:10.1080/13571510110102958
Fox, K. (2010). Mentor program boosts new nurses’ satisfaction and lowers turnover rate.
The Journal of continuing education in nursing, 41(7), 311-316.
doi:10.3928/00220124-20100401-04
Freifeld, L. (Ed.). (2017). 2017 Training Industry Report. Training Magazine, 20-33.
Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of
learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online
Learning(4), 1-27.
Gilbert, T. (2007). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (tribute
edition). San Francisco, CA: Pfieffer.
Gong, R., Chen, S., & Yang, M. (2014). Career outcome of employees: The mediating
effect of mentoring. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(3), 487-502.
doi:10.2221/sbp.2014.42.3.487
Gould, S., & Penleys, L. (2014). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their
relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 34(2), 244 - 265. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90006-0
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 219 - 247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
104
Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. (1990). Organizational experiences and
career success of black and while managers. Academy of Management Journal,
33, 64-86.
Grima, F., Paillé, P., Mejia, J., & Prud'homme, L. (2014). Exploring the benefits of
mentoring activities for the mentor. Career Development International, 19(4),
469-490. doi:10.1108/CDI-05-2012-0056
Grossman, R. (2011, August 10). The care and feeding of high-potential employees [Web
log post]. Retrieved from The SHRMBlog: https://blog.shrm.org/workforce/the-
care-and-feeding-of-high-potential-employees
Hall, D., & Chandler, D. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 155 - 176. doi:10.1002/job.301
Hansford, B., Tennent, L., & Ehrich, L. (2002). Business mentoring: Help or hindrance?
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 10(2), 101-115.
doi:10.1080/1361126022000002428
Harper, K. (1997). Evaluating the outcomes of formal mentoring relationships. Mentor
Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from library.carleton.ca
Harris, R., & Ormond, B. (2018). Historical knowledge in a knowledge economy- what
types of knowledge matter? 71(5), 564 - 580.
doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1462764
Holtbrügge, D., & Ambrosius, J. (2015). Mentoring, skill development, and career
success of foreign expatriates. Human Resource Development International,
18(3), 278-294. doi:10.1080/13678868.2015.1071989
Janssen, S., Tahitu, J., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. (2018). Coworkers’ perspectives
on mentoring relationships. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 245-272.
doi:10.1177/1059601116669641
JSTOR. (2018). About jstor. Retrieved from JSTOR: https://about-jstor-
org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/
105
Judge, T., & Bretz, J. (1992). Political influence behavior and career success. Academy of
Management Best Papers Proceedings, 58. doi:10.5465/ambpp.1992.4976750
Jyoti, J., & Sharma, P. (2017). Empirical investigation of a moderating and mediating
variable in between mentoring and job performance: A structural mode. Revista
De Psicologia Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 33(1), 55-67.
doi:10.1016/j.rpto.2017.01.002
Kahle-Piasecki, L. (2011). Making a mentoring relationship work: What is required for
organizational success. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(1),
46-56.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kirilenko, A., & Stepchenkova, S. (2016). Inter-coder agreement in one-to-many
classification: fuzzy kappa. PLoS One, 1 - 14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149787
Klinge, C. (2015). A conceptual framework for mentoring in a learning organization.
Adult Learning, 26(4), 160-166. doi:10.1177/1045159515594154
Kofodimos, J. (1993). Balancing Act. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R., Alayoglu, N., & Wolpin, J. (2014). Mentoring relationships
among managerial and professional women in Turkey: potential benefits? Cross
Cultural Managemnt(21), 2-22. doi:10.1108/CCM-10-2012-0103
Kram, K. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal,
26(4), 608-628. doi:10.2307/255910
Kram, K. (1996). A relational approach to career development. In E. Hall (Ed.), The
career is dead—Long live the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 132 -
157). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lankau, M., & Scandura, T. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 779 - 790. doi:10.5465/3069311
106
LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (2013). Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data:
A mixed methods approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira.
LexisNexis. (2018). About lexisnexis. Retrieved from LexisNexis:
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/about-us/about-us.page
Logan, M. (2009). How a mentoring program adds value to the lives of veteran
salespersons. Doctoral Dissertation, Argosy University, Sarasota, FL. Retrieved
from academia.edu
Lohman, M. (2004). The development of a multirater instrument for assessing employee
problem-solving skill. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 303 - 321.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1105
Lyle, D., & Smith, J. (2014). The effect of high-performing mentors on junior officer
promotion in the US army. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(2), 229-258.
doi:10.1086/673372
MacQueen, K., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for
team-based qualitative analysis. CAM Journal, 10(2), 31-36.
doi:10.1177/1525822x980100020301
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103 - 123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
Makokha, E., Mwalili, S., Basiye, F., Zeh , C., Emonyi, W., Langat, R., . . . Mwangi, J.
(2014). Using standard and institutional mentorship models to implement SLMTA
in Kenya. African Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 3(2), 1-8.
doi:10.4102/ajlm.v3i2.220
Masalimova, A., Usak, M., & Shaidullina, A. (2016). Advantages and disadvantages of
national and international corporate training techniques in adult education.
Current Science, 111(9), 1480-1485. doi:10.18520/cs/v111/i9/1480-1485
Matusovich, H., Paretti, M., McNair, L., & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A
gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering
Education, 103(2), 302-330. doi:10.1002/jee.20044
107
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2007). The effects of leader communication on a worker's
intent to stay: An investigation using structural equation modeling. Human
Performance, 20(2), 85 - 102. doi:10.1080/08959280701332018
McKevitt, D., & Davis, P. (2014). Supplier development and public procurement: allies,
coaches and bedfellows. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
27(7), 550-563. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-03-2014-0041
Mentor. (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mentor
Mentoring. (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary Onlinr. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mentoring
Mertens, D., & Hesse-Biber, S. (2013). Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in
evaluation. New Directions For Evaluation, 2013(138), 5-13.
doi:10.1002/ev.20053
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michel, J., Newness, K., & Duniewicz, K. (2016). How abusive supervision affects
workplace deviance: A moderated-mediation examiniation of aggressiveness and
work-related negative affect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(1), 1 - 22.
doi:10.1007/s10869-015-9400-2
Monserrat, S., Duffy, J., Olivas-Lujaen, M., Miller, J., Gregory, A., Fox, S., . . . Santos,
N. (2009). Mentoring experiences of successful women across the americas.
Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24(6), 455-476.
doi:10.4337/9781847201799.00012
Morgan, G. (2013). Ibm spss for introductory statistics : Use and interpretation (Fifth
Edition ed.). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203127315
Mulrow, C. (1994). Rationale For systematic reviews. British Medical Journa,
309(6954), 597-599.
108
Murray, M. (2001). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an
effective mentoring process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mwangi, N., Zondervan, M., & Bascaran, C. (2017). . Analysis of an international
collaboration for capacity building of human resources for eye care: case study of
the college-college VISION 2020 LINK. Human Resources for Health, 15(1).
doi:10.1186/s12960-017-0196-1
Naim, M., & Lenka, U. (2017). How does mentoring contribute to gen Y employees'
intention to stay? An Indian perspective. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 13(2),
314-335. doi:10.5964/ejop.v13i2.1304
Nicholson, N. (2000). Motivation-selection-connection: An evolutionary model of career
development. In M. Arthur, R. Peiperl, R. Goffee, & T. Morris (Eds.), Career
frontiers: New concepts of working life (pp. 54 - 75). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nick, J., Delahoyde, T., Del Prato, D., Mitchell, C., Ortiz, J., Ottley, C., . . . Siktberg, L.
(2012). Best practices in academic mentoring: a model for excellence. Nursing
Research and Practice, 93706, 1-8. doi:10.1155/2012/937906
Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring
relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457 - 479. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1988.tb00638.x
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review
of information systems research. SSRN Electronic Journal.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1954824
ÖZcan, K., & ÇAĞLar, Ç. (2013). İl eğıtım denetmenlerının meslekı gelışımınde
mentorluk [Mentorship in the professional development of provincial educational
supervisors]. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Journal of Social Sciences], 6(13), 178-
204.
Perrone, L., Voeurng, V., Sek, S., Song, S., Vong, N., Tous, C., . . . Martin, R. (2016).
Implementation research: a mentoring programme to improve laboratory quality
109
in Cambodia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94(10), 743-751.
doi:0.2471/BLT.15.163824
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A
practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O'Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., . . . Rousseau,
M. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed
studies reviews. (D. o. Medicine, Ed.) Montreal, Canada: McGill University.
Retrieved 3 26, 2018, from
http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/FrontPage
Podolny, J., & Baron, J. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and
mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673 - 693.
doi:10.2307/2657354
Pololi, L., Evans, A., Civian, J., Vasiliou, V., Coplit, L., Gillum, L., . . . Brennan, R.
(2015). Mentoring faculty: A US national survey of its adequacy and linkage to
culture in academic health centers. The Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions, 35(3), 176-184. doi:10.1002/chp.21294
Poteat, L., Shockley, K., & Allen, T. (2015). Attachment anxiety in mentoring: The role
of commitment. Career Development International, 20, 119 - 132.
doi:10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0157
ProQuest. (2018a). About abi/inform collection. Retrieved from ProQuest: https://search-
proquest-
com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/abicomplete/productfulldescdetail?accountid=9649
ProQuest. (2018b). asian & european business collection. Retrieved from ProQuest:
https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/asianbusiness?accountid=9649
ProQuest. (2018c). proQuest central. Retrieved from ProQuest: https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/central?accountid=9649
Protégé. (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/protege
110
Ragins, B., & Scandura, T. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of
being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 493-509.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4%3C493::AID-JOB894%3E3.0.CO;2-
T
Robinson, A., Annear, M., & Lea, E. (2014). Are care workers appropriate mentors for
nursing students in residential aged care? BMC Nursing, 13(1), 1-8.
Rogers, A., Luksyte, A., & Spitzmuller, C. (2016). Predictors of effective formal
mentoring: Is the mentor's commitment all that matters? Human Performance,
29(3), 209-225. doi:10.1080/08959285.2016.1148035
Rossett, A. (2009). First things fast (2 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Rothwell, W., & Sensenig, K. (Eds.). (1999). The sourcebook for self-directed learning.
Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development PRess.
Rothwell, W., Hohn, C., & King, S. (2007). Human performance improvement: Building
practitioner competence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rueywei, G., Shih-Ying, C., & Min-Lang, Y. (2014). Career outcome of employees: The
mediating effect of mentoring. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 42(3), 487-501.
Santoro, N., McGinn, A., Cohen, H., Kaskel, F., Marantz, P., Mulvihill, M., &
Schoenbaum, E. (2010). In it for the long-term: Defining the mentor–protégé
relationship in a clinical research training program. Academic Medicine: Journal
of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 85(6), 1067-1072.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181dbc5c7
Scandura, T., & Ragins, B. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on
mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
43(3), 251 - 265. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046
Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory
- general survey (mbi-gs). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.),
Maslach burnout inventory manual (pp. 19 - 25). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
111
Sloman, M., & Philpott , J. (2006). Training and learning in the knowledge and service
economy. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(3), 240 -250.
doi:10.1108/03090590610662977
Smith-Jentsch, K., Fullick, J., & Bencaz, N. (2012). Complementary mentor motivations
and protégé characteristics: Determinants of mentoring. Journal of
Organizational Psychology, 12(3/4), 56-69.
Smith-Ruig, T. (2014). Exploring the links between mentoring and work-related learning.
Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 769-782.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.863837
Srivastava, S. (2015). Network intervention: assessing the effects of formal mentoring on
workplace networks. Social Forces, 94(1), 427-452. doi:10.1093/sf/sov041
Srivastava, S., & Thakur, M. (2013). Mentoring and performance: Testing a mediated
model in supervisory and formal mentoring in business organisation.
International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 6(2), 16-35.
Struyk, R. J., & Haddaway, S. R. (2011). Mentoring policy research organizations:
Project evaluation results. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 23(3), 636-660. doi:10.1007/s11266-011-9222-4
Stufflebeam, D., & Coryn, C. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tullman, G. (2016, April 21). Don’t choose a mentor. Retrieved from forbes.com:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/glentullman/2016/04/21/dont-choose-a-
mentor/#1e3f961d044f
Tumons, J., Kitchel, T., & Garton, B. (2014). Mentoring expectation congruency,
interaction, and psychosocial support in Missouri’s agriculture teacher mentor
program. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=zT6CrgEACAAJ
Turban, D., & Dougherty, T. (1994). Role of personality in receipt of mentoring and
career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688 - 702.
doi:10.2307/256706
112
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 999 - 1015.
doi:10.1177/0013164497057006009
Web Of Science. (2018). web Of science. Retrieved from Web Of Science:
http://apps.webofknowledge.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/select_databases.do?hig
hlighted_tab=select_databases&product=UA&SID=7Aax5KbmerNc2AyhDuZ&l
ast_prod=WOS&cacheurl=not
Weinberg, F., & Lankau, M. (2011). Formal mentoring programs: A mentor-centric and
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1527-1557.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for the minnesota
satisfaction questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Industrial
Relations Center.
Wellbourne, T., Johnson, D., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale:
Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. The Academy of Management
Journal, 41(5), 540 - 555. doi:10.5465/256941
Welsh, E., & Dixon, P. (2016). Improving Mentoring Outcomes: Examining Factors
outside the Relationship. Journal of Managerial Issues, 28(3/4), 231-247.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2005.03621.x
Wu, S., Turban, D., & Cheung, Y. (2012). Social skill in workplace mentoring
relationships . Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,
16(2), 51-62.
Yao, X., Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Burton, J., & Sablynski, C. (2004). Job embeddedness:
Current research and future directions. In R. Griffeth, & P. Hom (Eds.),
Understanding employee retention and turnover (pp. 153 - 187). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Zhenyuan, W., Huiping, Z., Xi, C., & Yongjia, D. (2016). Imprression managment tactics
of protègès and mentors' knowledge-sharing behavior. Social Behavior &
113
Personality: an international journal, 44(11), 1825-1838.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2016.44.11.1825
Zhuang, W.-L., Wu, M., & Wen, S.-L. (2013). Relationship of mentoring functions to
expatriate adjustments: comparing home country mentorship and host country
mentorship. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 35-
49. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.669784
114
APPENDIX A
Articles Included in Study
114
Tab
le A
1
Art
icle
s in
clu
ded
in
stu
dy
Au
thor
Tit
le
Yea
r
Stu
dy T
yp
e S
tud
y p
op
ula
tion
M
easu
re
Aro
ra a
nd
Ran
gnek
ar (
2014
)
Work
pla
ce
men
tori
ng a
nd c
aree
r
resi
lien
ce:
An
empir
ical
tes
t
2014
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey o
f 205 I
ndia
n m
anag
ers
in f
ive
org
aniz
atio
ns
in N
ort
h I
ndia
on t
hei
r ow
n
exper
ience
s
Bac
h O
uer
dia
n e
t
al.
(2018)
L'e
ffet
du m
ento
rat
sur
la r
éuss
ite
de
carr
ière
: q
uel
les
dif
fére
nce
s en
tre
hom
mes
et
fem
mes
?
[The
effe
ct o
f
men
tori
ng o
n c
aree
r
succ
ess:
What
are
th
e
dif
fere
nce
s b
etw
een
men
and w
om
en?]
2018
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey o
f 400 m
iddle
an
d s
enio
r
man
ager
s in
Tunis
ian b
anks
bas
ed o
n a
conven
ience
sam
ple
. 237
res
ponse
s w
ere
incl
uded
in t
he
final
anal
ysi
s. S
om
e dat
a
had
to b
e tr
ansl
ated
fro
m F
ren
ch.
Par
tici
pan
ts w
ere
asked
about
thei
r ow
n
exper
ience
s w
ith m
ento
rs. S
ample
resp
onse
s w
ere
137 m
en a
nd 1
00 w
om
en
- an
d t
he
stud
y i
s fo
cuse
d o
n g
end
er
dif
fere
nce
s
Chen
g a
nd P
eng
(2016)
The
effe
ct o
f
men
tori
ng o
n
pro
tégé'
org
aniz
atio
nal
dev
iance
2016
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
eys
sent
to 2
50 d
yad
s of
men
tors
and
pro
teges
in 2
Chin
ese
man
ufa
cturi
ng
com
pan
ies
- ra
ndom
ly i
den
tifi
ed b
y H
R
at b
oth
com
pan
ies.
218 p
rote
ges
and 2
11
men
tors
res
ponded
. S
urv
ey h
ad t
o b
e
tran
slat
ed t
o C
hin
ese
to a
dm
inis
ter,
and
then
bac
k t
o E
ngli
sh t
o m
easu
re.
115
Dep
tula
and
Wil
liam
s (2
017)
An i
nte
rsubje
ctiv
e
per
spec
tive
on t
he
role
of
com
munal
shar
ing i
n s
yn
ergis
tic
co-m
ento
rin
g:
Impli
cati
ons
for
hum
an r
esourc
e
dev
elopm
ent
2017
Qual
itat
ive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
emi-
stru
cture
d i
nte
rvie
ws
wit
h 2
6
men
tori
ng d
yad
s -
5 a
t a
nat
ional
hote
l
chai
n, 21 w
her
e th
e pro
tégé
was
invo
lved
in a
n e
xec
uti
ve
MB
A p
rogra
m i
n t
he
Unit
ed S
tate
d, but
the
men
tor
was
not.
Men
tori
ng w
as n
ot
rela
ted t
o t
he
educa
tion.
Far
nes
e et
al.
(2017)
Don't
aban
don h
ope
all
ye
who e
nte
r
her
e: T
he
pro
tect
ive
role
of
form
al
men
tori
ng a
nd
lear
nin
g p
roce
sses
on
burn
out
in
corr
ecti
onal
off
icer
s
2017
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey t
o a
ll 3
96 I
tali
an c
orr
ecti
ons
off
icer
s w
ho h
ad c
om
ple
ted t
he
Min
istr
y
of
Just
ice
trai
nin
g. 1
17 r
esponded
.
Gri
ma
et a
l.
(2014)
Ex
plo
ring t
he
ben
efit
s of
men
tori
ng
acti
vit
ies
for
the
men
tor
2014
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
500 s
urv
eys
sent
to f
orm
er s
tuden
ts o
f a
Fre
nch
busi
nes
s sc
hool
(ran
dom
ly
sele
cted
). 198 r
eturn
ed.
Surv
ey a
sked
about
the
resp
onden
t's'
ex
per
ience
s as
a
men
tor
Holt
brü
gge
and
Am
bro
sius
(2015)
Men
tori
ng, sk
ill
dev
elopm
ent,
and
care
er s
ucc
ess
of
fore
ign e
xpat
riat
es
2015
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey o
f al
l 109 e
xpat
riat
e A
mer
ican
work
ers
who w
ork
ed i
n G
erm
any f
or
thei
r co
mpan
y b
etw
een 2
008 a
nd 2
013.
62 s
urv
eys
retu
rned
.
116
Janss
en e
t al
.
(2018)
Cow
ork
ers’
per
spec
tives
on
men
tori
ng
rela
tionsh
ips.
2018
Qual
itat
ive
Inte
rnat
ional
21 s
emi
stru
cture
d i
nte
rvie
ws
wit
h c
o-
work
ers
of
men
tori
ng d
yad
s in
the
Net
her
lands.
P
arti
cipan
ts s
elec
ted
thro
ugh L
inked
In a
dver
tisi
ng.
Par
tici
pan
ts w
ere
outs
ide
obse
rver
s o
f
info
rmal
men
tori
ng i
n t
hei
r w
ork
gro
up,
wer
e in
a c
leri
cal
or
pro
fess
ional
whit
e-
coll
ar r
ole
and w
ork
ed o
n t
hei
r te
am f
or
at l
east
tw
elve
month
s
Ko
yun
cu e
t al
.
(2014)
Men
tori
ng
rela
tionsh
ips
among
man
ager
ial
and
pro
fess
ional
wom
en
in T
urk
ey:
pote
nti
al
ben
efit
s?
2014
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
480 s
urv
eys
sent
to f
emal
e em
plo
yee
s of
a T
urk
ish a
irli
ne.
192 s
urv
eys
wer
e
retu
rned
. A
sked
about
thei
r ex
per
ience
s
as a
pro
tégé
Lyle
and S
mit
h
(2014)
The
effe
ct o
f hig
h-
per
form
ing m
ento
rs
on j
unio
r off
icer
pro
moti
on i
n t
he
US
arm
y.
2014
Quan
tita
tive
US
U
S A
rmy a
dm
inis
trat
ive
dat
a fr
om
1998
- 2008 o
f bat
tali
on c
om
man
der
s an
d t
hei
r
pro
teges
. M
easu
re o
f p
rom
oti
on a
mong
those
men
tors
Mak
okha
et a
l.
(2014)
Usi
ng s
tandar
d a
nd
inst
ituti
onal
men
tors
hip
model
s
to i
mple
men
t
SL
MT
A i
n K
enya
2014
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
K
enyan
lab
res
ult
s w
ere
audit
ed b
efore
,
duri
ng a
nd a
fter
men
tor
pro
gra
m
par
tici
pat
ion. Q
ual
ity s
core
s w
ere
trac
ked
.
117
McK
evit
t an
d
Dav
is (
201
4)
Suppli
er
dev
elopm
ent
and
publi
c pro
cure
men
t:
alli
es, co
ach
es a
nd
bed
fell
ow
s
2014
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey o
f co
nven
ience
sam
ple
of
those
involv
ed i
n p
ubli
c bu
yin
g i
n U
K. 338
resp
onden
ts. N
ot
use
d i
n t
his
MS
R
bec
ause
, af
ter
furt
her
rev
iew
, th
is a
rtic
le
is n
ot
about
men
tori
ng.
Nai
m a
nd L
enka
(2017)
How
does
men
tori
ng
contr
ibute
to g
en Y
emplo
yee
s' i
nte
nti
on
to s
tay? A
n I
ndia
n
per
spec
tive
2017
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
C
ross
-sec
tional
surv
ey o
f G
en Y
tec
h
emplo
yee
s in
India
wit
h a
t le
ast
1 y
ear
exper
ience
fro
m 2
7. 4
15 s
urv
eys
random
ly s
ent
- 314 c
om
ple
ted.
ÖZ
can
and
ÇA
ĞL
ar (
2013
)
İl e
ğıt
ım
den
etm
enle
rının
mes
lekı
gel
ışım
ınde
men
torl
uk
[Men
tors
hip
in t
he
pro
fess
ional
dev
elopm
ent
of
pro
vin
cial
educa
tional
super
vis
ors
]
2013
Qual
itat
ive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
emi-
stru
cture
d i
nte
rvie
ws.
N
ot
use
d i
n
this
MS
R b
ecau
se n
ot
tran
slat
ed f
rom
Turk
ish e
nou
gh t
o u
nder
stan
d
118
Per
rone
et
al. (2
016)
Imple
men
tati
on
rese
arch
: a
men
tori
ng
pro
gra
mm
e to
impro
ve
labora
tory
qual
ity i
n C
ambodia
.
2016
Qual
itat
ive
Inte
rnat
ional
N
on-r
andom
ized
quas
i-ex
per
imen
tal
stud
y
quan
tita
tive
stud
y o
f la
bo
rato
ries
in
Cam
bodia
. N
ot
use
d i
n t
his
MS
R b
ecau
se
the
stud
y s
how
ed i
mple
men
tati
on r
esult
s of
a qual
ity p
rogra
m a
cross
lab
ora
tori
es i
n
Cam
bodia
. M
ento
ring w
as o
ne
par
t of
a
larg
er p
rogra
m. T
he
pap
er, how
ever
, did
not
hav
e a
spec
ific
men
tori
ng o
utc
om
e R
Q
show
n.
Roger
s et
al. (2
016)
Pre
dic
tors
of
effe
ctiv
e
form
al m
ento
rin
g:
Is
the
men
tor'
s
com
mit
men
t al
l th
at
mat
ters
?
2016
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
eys
of
men
tor
pai
rs a
t an
oil
com
pan
y
in w
est
Afr
ica.
Per
form
ance
dat
a p
rovid
ed
by 2
0 s
uper
vis
ors
on t
hei
r 78 m
ento
rs
Ruey
wei
et
al. (2
014)
Car
eer
outc
om
e of
emplo
yee
s: T
he
med
iati
ng e
ffec
t of
men
tori
ng
2014
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey o
f 246 T
aiw
anes
e co
rpora
te
emplo
yee
s (b
ased
on 4
00
sen
t bas
ed o
n a
conven
ience
sam
ple
.)
Sm
ith
-
Jents
ch e
t
al. (2
012)
Com
ple
men
tary
men
tor
moti
vat
ions
and p
roté
gé
char
acte
rist
ics:
Det
erm
inan
ts o
f
men
tori
ng
2012
Quan
tita
tive
US
S
urv
ey o
f ei
ghty
-six
indiv
idual
s w
ho h
ave
a
super
vis
ory
men
tor
acro
ss f
ive
com
pan
ies
in t
he
US
119
Sri
vas
tava
(2015)
Net
work
inte
rven
tion:
asse
ssin
g t
he
effe
cts
of
form
al m
ento
rin
g o
n
work
pla
ce n
etw
ork
s
2015
Mix
ed
Not
spec
ifie
d
40 i
nte
rvie
ws
wit
h p
rote
ges
in a
Chin
ese
soft
war
e co
mpan
y.
Sri
vas
tava
and T
hak
ur
(2013)
Men
tori
ng a
nd
per
form
ance
: T
esti
ng
a m
edia
ted m
odel
in
super
vis
ory
and
form
al m
ento
rin
g i
n
busi
nes
s org
anis
atio
n
2013
Quan
tita
tive
Not
spec
ifie
d
502 s
urv
eys
of
par
tici
pan
ts i
n a
men
tor
work
shop a
bout
thei
r m
ento
r ex
per
ience
Wel
sh a
nd
Dix
on
(2016)
Impro
vin
g m
ento
rin
g
outc
om
es:
Ex
amin
ing
fact
ors
outs
ide
the
rela
tionsh
ip.
2016
Quan
tita
tiv
e U
S
Per
iodic
surv
eys
of
pro
teges
thro
ughout
a
yea
r-lo
ng m
ento
r p
rogra
m. 342 o
f 429
men
tors
who s
tart
ed t
he
pro
gra
m c
om
ple
ted
all
surv
eys.
A
nd t
hose
res
ult
s w
ere
incl
uded
. T
wo p
roté
gés
wer
e el
imin
ated
due
to "
susp
icio
us
answ
er p
atte
rns.
"
Pro
tégés
wer
e fr
om
24 o
rgan
izat
ions
Zhen
yu
an
et a
l. (
2016)
Imprr
essi
on
man
agm
ent
tact
ics
of
pro
tègès
and m
ento
rs'
know
ledge-
shar
ing
beh
avio
r
2016
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
P
erio
dic
surv
eys
of
pro
teges
in C
hin
a.
Surv
eys
wer
e se
nt
rando
mly
fro
m H
R
dep
artm
ents
. 2
80 s
ent,
227 s
tart
ed, 209
val
id r
esponse
s to
all
surv
ey l
evel
s.
120
Zhuan
g e
t
al. (2
013)
Rel
atio
nsh
ip o
f
men
tori
ng f
un
ctio
ns
to
expat
riat
e
adju
stm
ents
:
com
par
ing h
om
e
countr
y m
ento
rship
and h
ost
countr
y
men
tors
hip
2013
Quan
tita
tive
Inte
rnat
ional
S
urv
ey o
f 400 e
xpat
riat
es w
ork
ing i
n C
hin
a
for
Mult
i-N
atio
nal
Corp
ora
tions
(Tai
wan
ese
corp
ora
tion).
C
onven
ience
sam
pli
ng. D
istr
ibute
d t
hro
ugh H
R
dep
artm
ents
and a
n E
MB
A p
rogra
m. 2
86
retu
rned
.
122
APPENDIX B
Mmat Quantitative Studies
122
Tab
le B
1
MM
AT
Qu
an
tita
tive
stu
die
s
Art
icle
4.1
. Is
th
e sa
mp
lin
g
stra
tegy r
elev
an
t to
ad
dre
ss t
he
rese
arch
qu
esti
on
?
4.2
. Is
th
e sa
mp
le
rep
rese
nta
tive
of
the
targ
et
pop
ula
tion
?
4.3
. A
re t
he
mea
sure
men
ts
ap
pro
pri
ate
?
4.4
. Is
th
e ri
sk o
f
non
resp
on
se b
ias
low
?
4.5
. Is
th
e st
ati
stic
al
an
aly
sis
ap
pro
pri
ate
to a
nsw
er t
he
rese
arch
qu
esti
on
?
Aro
ra a
nd
Ran
gnek
ar
(2014)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
C
an't
tell
Y
es
Bac
h
Ouer
dia
n e
t
al. (2
018)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Chen
g a
nd
Pen
g
(2016)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Far
nes
e et
al. (2
017)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
N
o
Yes
Gri
ma
et
al. (2
01
4)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
123
Holt
brü
gge
and
Am
bro
sius
(2015)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Ko
yun
cu e
t
al. (2
014)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
C
an't
tell
Y
es
Lyle
and
Sm
ith
(2014)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Mak
okha
et a
l.
(2014)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Nai
m a
nd
Len
ka
(2017)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Roger
s et
al. (2
016)
Yes
C
an't
tell
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Ruey
wei
et
al. (2
014)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
124
Sm
ith
-
Jents
ch e
t
al. (2
012)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
C
an't
tell
Y
es
Sri
vas
tava
and T
hak
ur
(2013)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Wel
sh an
d
Dix
on
(2016)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Zhen
yu
an
et a
l.
(2016)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Zhuan
g e
t
al. (2
013)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
C
an't
tell
Y
es
125
Tab
le B
2
MM
AT
Qu
ali
tati
ve
stu
die
s
Art
icle
1.1
. Is
th
e
qu
ali
tati
ve
ap
pro
ach
ap
pro
pri
ate
to
an
swer
th
e
rese
arch
qu
esti
on
?
1.2
. A
re t
he
qu
ali
tati
ve
data
coll
ecti
on
met
hod
s
ad
equ
ate
to
ad
dre
ss t
he
rese
arch
qu
esti
on
?
1.3
. A
re t
he
fin
din
gs
ad
equ
ate
ly d
eriv
ed
from
th
e d
ata
?
1.4
. Is
th
e
inte
rpre
tati
on
of
resu
lts
suff
icie
ntl
y
sub
stan
tiate
d b
y
data
?
1.5
. Is
th
ere
coh
eren
ce
bet
wee
n
qu
ali
tati
ve
data
sou
rces
, co
llec
tion
,
an
aly
sis
an
d
inte
rpre
tati
on
?
Dep
tula
and
Wil
liam
s (2
017)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Janss
en e
t al
. (2
018)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Tab
le B
3
MM
AT
Mix
ed S
tud
ies
Art
icle
5.1
. Is
th
ere
an
ad
equ
ate
rati
on
ale
for
usi
ng a
mix
ed
met
hod
s d
esig
n t
o
ad
dre
ss t
he
rese
arch
qu
esti
on
?
5.2
. A
re t
he
dif
fere
nt
com
pon
ents
of
the
stu
dy e
ffec
tivel
y
inte
gra
ted
to
an
swer
th
e
rese
arch
qu
esti
on
?
5.3
. A
re t
he
ou
tpu
ts o
f th
e
inte
gra
tion
of
qu
ali
tati
ve
an
d
qu
an
tita
tive
com
pon
ents
ad
equ
ate
ly
inte
rpre
ted
?
5.4
. A
re
div
ergen
ces
an
d
inco
nsi
sten
cies
bet
wee
n
qu
an
tita
tive
an
d
qu
ali
tati
ve
resu
lts
ad
equ
ate
ly
ad
dre
ssed
?
5.5
. D
o t
he
dif
fere
nt
com
pon
ents
of
the
stu
dy a
dh
ere
to t
he
qu
ali
ty c
rite
ria o
f
each
tra
dit
ion
of
the
met
hod
s
involv
ed?
Sri
vas
tava
(2015)
Yes
Y
es
Yes
Y
es
Can
’t t
ell
127
APPENDIX C
Coding For Articles
127
Tab
le C
1
Ori
gin
al
Cod
ing
Cod
e L
evel
S
econ
d
level
Mea
nin
g
Def
init
ion
C
Men
tor
Funct
ion
Car
eer
Car
eer
funct
ions
are
those
asp
ects
of
the
rela
tionsh
ip t
hat
pri
mar
ily e
nhan
ce c
aree
r ad
van
cem
ent.
(K
ram
, 19
83, p. 614).
P
Men
tor
Funct
ion
(Kra
m,
1983)
Psy
choso
cial
P
sych
oso
cial
funct
ions
are
those
asp
ects
of
the
rela
tionsh
ip t
hat
pri
mar
ily e
nhan
ce s
ense
of
com
pet
ence
, cl
arit
y o
f id
enti
ty, an
d
effe
ctiv
enes
s in
the
man
ager
ial
role
. (K
ram
, 1983,
p. 614).
CD
C
aree
r
Com
pet
ency
dev
elopm
ent
"Opport
unit
y t
o p
ract
ice
new
skil
ls"
(Wel
sh &
Dix
on, 2016, p.
232).
CS
O
Car
eer
Obje
ctiv
e C
aree
r
Succ
ess
"Obje
ctiv
e ca
reer
succ
ess
is t
hus
def
ined
as
the
judgm
ent
of
oth
ers
on c
aree
r ac
hie
vem
ents
of
an i
ndiv
idual
usi
ng o
bse
rvab
le,
mea
sura
ble
cri
teri
a, s
uch
as
sala
ry, pro
moti
on a
nd s
enio
rity
(Judge
et a
l., 1995;
Nic
hols
on
, 2000)"
(B
ach O
uer
dia
n e
t al
.,
2018, p. 118).
CS
S
Car
eer
Subje
ctiv
e C
aree
r
Succ
ess
Subje
ctiv
e ca
reer
su
cces
s is
def
ined
by t
he
sati
sfac
tion o
f th
e
per
son f
or
his
cu
rren
t jo
b a
nd c
aree
r sa
tisf
acti
on,
whic
h i
n t
urn
is d
efin
ed a
s th
e sa
tisf
acti
on f
rom
the
intr
insi
c an
d e
xtr
insi
c
aspec
ts o
f li
fe, in
cludin
g s
alar
y, ad
van
cem
ent
and d
evel
opm
ent
opport
unit
ies
(Hal
l &
Ch
andle
r [r
efer
ence
co
rrec
ted f
rom
tran
slat
ion],
2005).
(B
ach O
uer
dia
n e
t al
., 2
018, p. 119).
CX
C
aree
r
Coac
hin
g
sett
ing a
ch
alle
nge
that
lea
ds
the
pro
tégé
to e
xce
l him
self
pro
fess
ional
ly (
Gri
ma
et a
l., 2014, p. 471).
128
KS
C
aree
r
Know
led
ge
Shar
ing
P
eer
men
tors
shar
e or
exte
rnal
ize
know
led
ge
wh
en t
hey
tak
e
tim
e to
org
aniz
e th
eir
tho
ughts
, w
rite
them
dow
n,
and m
ake
expli
cit
what
they
under
stan
d i
mpli
citl
y. M
ento
rs c
an s
har
e
know
ledge
of
pro
cess
es (
such
as
acce
ssin
g t
he
net
work
or
how
to e
nte
r a
reco
rd i
n a
dat
abas
e), know
led
ge
of
peo
ple
(su
ch a
s
who t
o c
onta
ct f
or
hel
p o
n p
arti
cula
r is
sues
), a
nd k
now
ledge
of
syst
ems
(such
as
how
cust
om
er f
eedb
ack i
s co
llec
ted a
nd s
har
ed
in t
he
firm
) (B
ryan
t, 2
00
5, p. 324).
LP
C
aree
r
CD
L
earn
ing P
roce
ss
The
lear
nin
g p
roce
ss r
efer
s to
sel
f-in
itia
ted a
nd s
elf-
dir
ecte
d
indiv
idual
beh
avio
rs, b
y m
eans
of
whic
h e
mplo
yees
(in
the
pre
sent
rese
arch
, new
com
ers)
act
ivel
y i
mpro
ve
thei
r
com
pet
enci
es a
nd w
ork
envir
onm
ent
[43
–45]
and e
ffec
tivel
y
cope
wit
h d
eman
din
g c
ondit
ions
(Far
nes
e et
al.
, 2
017, p. 322).
MD
C
aree
r
Mutu
al D
evel
opm
ent
Co-m
ento
ring d
yad
ic p
roce
sses
incl
ude
fluid
ex
per
tise
,
coll
abora
tive
dev
elopm
ent,
and k
now
led
ge
gen
erat
ion. (D
eptu
la
& W
illi
ams,
2017, p. 377).
PL
C
aree
r
Per
sonal
Lea
rnin
g
Kra
m (
1985, 1996)
def
ined
per
sonal
lea
rnin
g a
s ac
quir
ing s
kil
ls,
know
ledge,
or
com
pet
ence
that
contr
ibute
to c
aree
r outc
om
e
(Ruey
wei
et
al.,
2014, p.
489).
PR
O
Car
eer
Pro
tect
or
Pre
ven
t th
e pro
tégé
from
under
takin
g a
ctio
ns
that
mig
ht
jeopar
dis
e his
im
age
and r
eputa
tion i
n t
he
ente
rpri
se (
Gri
ma
et
al.,
2014, p. 479).
PS
C
aree
r
PX
P
oli
tica
l S
kil
l "P
oli
tica
l sk
ill
incl
udes
kno
win
g h
ow
to w
ield
the
soci
al s
kil
l to
obta
in n
eeded
res
ourc
es i
n e
nvir
onm
ents
wher
e ex
pec
tati
ons
are
uncl
ear
and n
etw
ork
s ar
e co
mple
x (
Fer
ris
et a
l., 2005).
"
(Roger
s et
al.
, 2016, p. 2
13).
129
PX
C
aree
r
Pro
fess
ional
Ex
posu
re
Appoin
tmen
ts t
o e
nvia
ble
post
s, o
r in
troduct
ions
to i
nfl
uen
tial
peo
ple
in o
rder
to i
ncr
ease
the
vis
ibil
ity o
f th
e pro
tégé
in t
he
ente
rpri
se (
Gri
ma
et a
l., 2014, p. 471).
SP
C
aree
r
Syner
gis
tic
pote
nti
al
"...m
ember
s ac
t as
a c
oal
itio
n:
“all
iance
s of
mem
ber
s unit
ing t
o
achie
ve
a co
mm
on o
bje
ctiv
e (S
teven
son, P
earc
e, &
Port
er,
1985, p. 267)"
(Dep
tula
et
al.,
2017, 382).
Int
Contr
ol
var
iable
Inte
rnat
ional
S
tud
y p
opula
tion o
uts
ide
the
Unit
ed S
tate
s.
NS
C
ontr
ol
var
iable
Not
Sta
ted
S
tud
y p
opula
tion n
ot
stat
ed.
US
C
ontr
ol
var
iable
Unit
ed S
tate
s S
tud
y p
opula
tion w
ith
in t
he
Unit
ed S
tate
s.
AC
P
sych
oso
cial
E
E
Aff
ecti
ve
Com
mit
men
t "A
ffec
tive
com
mit
men
t is
the
des
ire
to r
emai
n a
mem
ber
of
an
org
aniz
atio
n b
ecau
se o
f a
stro
ng e
moti
onal
att
ach
men
t (M
eyer
& A
llen
, 1991)"
(F
leig
-Pal
mer
& R
ather
t, 2
01
5, p
. 58).
AD
J P
sych
oso
cial
E
E
Adju
stm
ent
‘The
deg
ree
of
a per
son’s
psy
cholo
gic
al c
om
fort
wit
h v
ario
us
aspec
ts o
f a
new
set
tin
g’
(Bla
ck a
nd G
reger
sen 1
991).
…
subje
ctiv
ely e
xper
ienci
ng s
om
e d
egre
e of
life
sat
isfa
ctio
n a
nd
feel
ing q
ual
ifie
d t
o d
o t
hei
r jo
bs
and i
nte
ract
" (Z
huan
g e
t al
.,
2013, p.
36, 40).
BO
P
sych
oso
cial
C
R
Burn
out
Burn
out
is t
he
pro
trac
ted c
onse
quen
ce o
f un
abat
ed j
ob s
tres
s
(Dow
den
& T
elli
er, 2004
, p. 34).
130
CA
P
sych
oso
cial
Car
eer
Advic
e re
assu
rin
g t
he
pro
tégé
about
his
act
ions,
enco
ura
gin
g t
he
latt
er
to f
org
e a
posi
tive
imag
e of
him
self
(G
rim
a et
al.
, 2014, p. 471).
CO
NF
P
sych
oso
cial
Confi
dan
te
seek
ing t
o c
reat
e a
spac
e of
com
pli
city
wit
h t
he
pro
tégé
wit
hin
whic
h t
he
latt
er c
an f
reel
y e
xpre
ss h
is f
ears
and a
nx
ieti
es
(Gri
ma
et a
l., 2014, p. 47
1).
CR
P
sych
oso
cial
Car
eer
Res
ilie
nce
A
bil
ity t
o a
dap
t to
chan
ges
even
wh
en s
ituat
ions
are
dis
rupti
ve
(Aro
ra &
Ran
gn
ekar
, 2
014, p
209).
CS
O
Psy
choso
cial
Obje
ctiv
e C
aree
r
Succ
ess
Obje
ctiv
e ca
reer
succ
ess
is t
hus
def
ined
as
the
jud
gm
ent
of
oth
ers
on c
aree
r ac
hie
vem
ents
of
an i
ndiv
idual
usi
ng
obse
rvab
le, m
easu
rable
cri
teri
a, s
uch
as
sala
ry, pro
moti
on a
nd
senio
rity
(Ju
dge
et a
l., 19
95;
Nic
hols
on, 2000)
(Bac
h O
uer
dia
n
et a
l., 2018, p. 118).
CS
S
Psy
choso
cial
Subje
ctiv
e C
aree
r
Succ
ess
Subje
ctiv
e ca
reer
su
cces
s is
def
ined
by t
he
sati
sfac
tion o
f th
e
per
son f
or
his
cu
rren
t jo
b a
nd c
aree
r sa
tisf
acti
on,
whic
h i
n t
urn
is d
efin
ed a
s th
e sa
tisf
acti
on f
rom
the
intr
insi
c an
d e
xtr
insi
c
aspec
ts o
f li
fe, in
cludin
g s
alar
y, ad
van
cem
ent
and d
evel
opm
ent
opport
unit
ies
(Hal
l &
Ch
andle
r [r
efer
ence
co
rrec
ted f
rom
tran
slat
ion],
2005).
(B
ach O
uer
dia
n e
t al
., 2
018, p. 119).
131
DC
P
sych
oso
cial
E
E
Dev
elopm
enta
l
Cli
mat
e
"Acc
ord
ing t
o B
lick
le, S
chnei
der
, M
eurs
, an
d P
erre
we´
(2010),
the
org
aniz
atio
nal
dev
elo
pm
enta
l cl
imat
e re
fers
to “
the
exte
nt
to w
hic
h t
he
org
aniz
atio
n s
upport
s em
plo
yee
s’ d
evel
opm
ent
such
that
org
aniz
atio
nal
mem
ber
s sh
are
per
cepti
ons
and
expec
tati
ons
that
lea
rnin
g i
s an
im
port
par
t o
f ev
eryd
ay w
ork
life
" (p
. 1901
)."
(Chen
g &
Pen
g, 2016 , p
. 205).
EE
P
sych
oso
cial
Em
plo
yee
En
gag
emen
t "A
spec
ts o
f th
e jo
b t
hat
sti
mula
te p
erso
nal
gro
wth
, le
arnin
g a
nd
dev
elopm
ent"
(W
elsh
& D
ixon, 2016, p. 233).
IM
Psy
choso
cial
Impre
ssio
n
Man
agem
ent
"ref
ers
to t
he
pro
cess
by w
hic
h a
per
son u
ses
par
ticu
lar
tact
ics
to i
nfl
uen
ce o
ther
s’ p
erce
pti
on o
f him
/her
and t
o i
mpre
ss o
ther
s
(Turn
ley &
Boli
no, 2001
)" (
Zhen
yuan
et
al.,
2016
, p. 1826).
ITS
P
sych
oso
cial
JE
In
tenti
on t
o S
tay
"Inte
nti
on t
o s
tay i
s th
e te
nden
cy o
f em
plo
yee
s to
rem
ain
emplo
yed
wit
h t
hei
r cu
rren
t org
aniz
atio
n (
Curr
ivan
, 1999
)"
(Nai
m &
Len
ka,
2017
, p.
320).
JE
Psy
choso
cial
E
E
Job E
mbed
ded
nes
s "J
ob e
mbed
ded
nes
s is
des
crib
ed a
s “t
he
com
bin
ed f
orc
es (
fit,
links
and s
acri
fice
) th
at k
eep a
per
son f
rom
lea
vin
g h
is o
r her
job”
(Yao
, L
ee, M
itch
ell,
Burt
on,
& S
ably
nsk
i, 2
004, p. 159)"
(Chen
g &
Pen
g, 2016 , p
. 203).
MC
P
sych
oso
cial
M
S
Men
tor
Com
mit
men
t "m
ento
r co
mm
itm
ent
des
crib
es a
men
tor’
s lo
ng
-ter
m v
iew
of
the
men
tori
ng r
elat
ion
ship
and w
het
her
they a
re t
ether
ed t
o
pro
moti
ng t
he
goal
s an
d i
nte
rest
s of
the
par
tner
ship
(P
ote
at e
t
al.,
2009)"
(R
oger
s et
al.
, 2016, p. 211).
132
MS
P
sych
oso
cial
Men
tor
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
"Men
tees
who a
re s
atis
fied
wit
h t
he
support
they r
ecei
ve
likel
y
eith
er r
ecei
ve
hig
h l
evel
s of
org
aniz
atio
nal
supp
ort
or
hav
e
expec
tati
ons
that
ali
gn w
ith t
he
support
pro
vid
ed (
Irvin
g a
nd
Mey
er, 1994)"
(W
elsh
& D
ixon,
2016, p. 234).
OD
P
sych
oso
cial
E
E
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Dev
iance
"Org
aniz
atio
nal
dev
iance
ref
ers
to e
mplo
yee
beh
avio
rs t
hat
erode
org
aniz
atio
nal
norm
s an
d b
ring p
ote
nti
al h
arm
to
org
aniz
atio
ns,
such
as
stea
ling, w
ithhold
ing e
ffo
rt, sa
bota
ge,
and d
rug u
se (
Ben
net
t &
Robin
son, 2000;
Mic
hel
, N
ewnes
s, &
Dunie
wic
z, 2
016)"
(C
hen
g &
Pen
g, 2016, p. 119).
OI
Psy
choso
cial
E
E
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Iden
tifi
cati
on
"org
aniz
atio
nal
iden
tifi
cati
on c
an b
e def
ined
as
“a p
erce
ived
onen
ess
wit
h a
n o
rgan
izat
ion a
nd t
he
exper
ience
of
the
org
aniz
atio
ns’
succ
esse
s an
d f
ailu
res
as o
ne’
s ow
n”
(Mae
l &
Ash
fort
h, 1992, p. 103
)" (
Chen
g &
Pen
g, 2016, p.
204).
RM
P
sych
oso
cial
Role
Model
ing
T
he
men
tor
serv
es a
s an
ex
ample
of
the
atti
tudes
and b
ehav
iour
most
so
ught
afte
r b
y t
he
org
anis
atio
n, an
d p
asse
s on t
he
val
ues
of
the
ente
rpri
se (
Gri
ma
et a
l., 2014, p. 471).
133
Tab
le C
2
Fin
al
cod
ing
Ou
tcom
e
Def
init
ion
W
hen
to u
se
Wh
en n
ot
to u
se
Exam
ple
of
wh
en t
o u
se
Car
eer
Res
ilie
nce
(CR
)
Car
eer
resi
lien
ce i
s th
e
pro
tégé’
s ab
ilit
y t
o a
dap
t
to a
ll s
ituat
ions,
incl
udin
g
dis
rupti
ve
chan
ge.
Th
e
pro
tégé
dem
onst
rate
s
care
er r
esil
ience
by
per
form
ing w
ell
in n
ew
sett
ings,
as
wel
l as
thei
r
ow
n f
eeli
ng o
f co
mfo
rt,
com
pet
ence
and
sati
sfac
tion i
n n
ew
sett
ings
(Aro
ra &
Ran
gnek
ar, 2014;
Bla
ck
& G
reger
sen, 1991;
Zhuan
g e
t al
., 2
013).
A
pro
tégé
not
dem
onst
rati
ng
care
er r
esil
ience
res
ult
s in
ongoin
g j
ob s
tres
s, w
hic
h
lead
s to
burn
out
(Dow
den
&T
elli
er, 2004
).
Use
this
when
the
quote
rela
tes
to a
pro
tégé
able
to
over
com
e an
obst
acle
to
thei
r ca
reer
.
Do n
ot
use
when
the
quo
te
rela
tes
to t
he
men
tor’
s
per
form
ance
.
"I t
hin
k i
t’s
espec
iall
y n
ice
for
a new
em
plo
yee
th
at h
e
or
she
can f
all
bac
k o
n t
he
sam
e per
son. T
hat
mak
es
that
you a
re a
lit
tle
less
afra
id t
o m
ake
mis
takes
.
And t
hat
wil
l giv
e you
more
confi
den
ce,
I th
ink.
(Fem
ale,
age
27, h
ealt
h
care
)" (
Janss
en e
t al
., 2
018,
p.2
56).
134
Car
eer
Succ
ess
(CS
)
Car
eer
succ
ess
is w
hen
the
pro
tégé
has
ach
iev
ed
“a h
igh l
evel
in [
thei
r]
pro
fess
ion”
(Monse
rrat
et
al., 2
009).
Ele
men
ts o
f
succ
ess
incl
ud
e “p
ay,
pro
moti
ons,
sta
tus…
job
and l
ife
sati
sfac
tion”
(Judge
& B
retz
, 1992,
p.5
8)
Ther
e ar
e tw
o t
yp
es
of
care
er s
ucc
ess:
Obje
ctiv
e ca
reer
succ
ess,
def
ined
as
obse
rvab
le
succ
ess
such
as
pro
moti
on, se
nio
rity
,
sala
ry, an
d i
ncr
ease
d
resp
onsi
bil
ity.
(Judge
et
al., 1
995;
Nic
hols
on,
2000;
Bac
h O
uer
dia
n e
t
al., 2
018, p. 118)
Subje
ctiv
e ca
reer
su
cces
s
is d
efin
ed b
y t
he
pro
tégé
sati
sfac
tion f
or
thei
r
curr
ent
care
er. E
xam
ple
s
incl
ude
dev
elopm
ent
opport
unit
ies,
hap
pin
ess,
work
/lif
e bal
ance
(H
all
&
Chan
dle
r, 2
005;
Bac
h
Ouer
dia
n e
t al
., 2
018
).
Use
this
when
the
quote
when
the
quote
tal
ks
abo
ut
pro
fess
ional
succ
ess
(obje
ctiv
e), or
the
psy
choso
cial
im
pac
t
(subje
ctiv
e) f
rom
the
succ
ess.
Do n
ot
use
when
the
quo
te
talk
s ab
out
the
pro
cess
inst
ead o
f th
e re
sult
.
“We
find t
hat
junio
r off
icer
s
who s
erve
und
er a
hig
h-
per
form
ing m
ento
r ar
e 2
9%
more
lik
ely t
o b
e se
lect
ed f
or
earl
y p
rom
oti
on t
o t
he
rank
of
maj
or”
(L
yle
& S
mit
h,
2014, p. 232).
134
Em
plo
yee
Engag
emen
t
(EE
)
Em
plo
yee
en
gag
emen
t is
the
elem
ents
of
a
pro
tégé’
s jo
b t
hat
enco
ura
ge
thei
r p
erso
nal
gro
wth
and l
earn
ing.
(Wel
sh &
Dix
on, 2016)
Engag
ed e
mplo
yee
s
iden
tify
wit
h a
n
org
aniz
atio
n’s
dir
ecti
on
(Mae
l &
Ash
fort
h, 1992;
Chen
g &
Pen
g, 2016)
hav
e an
em
oti
onal
connec
tion w
ith t
he
org
aniz
atio
n (
Mey
er &
All
en, 1991, F
leig
-Pal
mer
& R
ather
t, 2
015)
and
expre
ss a
n i
nte
nti
on t
o
stay
wit
h t
he
org
aniz
atio
n
(Curr
ivan
, 1999;
Nai
m,
&
Len
ka,
2017).
A n
on
-
engag
ed e
mplo
yee
may
dem
onst
rate
org
aniz
atio
nal
dev
iance
by b
ehav
ing i
n w
ays
that
“ero
de
org
aniz
atio
nal
norm
s an
d b
rin
g p
ote
nti
al
har
m t
o [
the
org
aniz
atio
n]
(Ben
net
t &
Robin
son,
2000;
Mic
hel
, N
ewn
ess,
& D
unie
wic
z, 2
016)"
Use
this
when
the
quote
refe
rs t
o a
n e
mplo
yee
psy
choso
cial
ly c
onnec
ting
wit
h t
hei
r ro
le, jo
b a
nd
org
aniz
atio
n. T
his
code
Focu
ses
on t
he
psy
choso
cial
connec
tion,
not
the
com
pet
ency.
Do n
ot
use
when
the
quo
te
refe
rs t
o t
he
emplo
yee
bei
ng
skil
led a
t th
eir
job o
nly
.
“This
is
pro
bab
ly d
ue
to
conti
nuous
emoti
onal
support
, guid
ance
,
counse
ling, vis
ibil
ity,
pro
tect
ion, per
sonal
and
pro
fess
ional
dev
elopm
ent
opport
unit
ies
off
ered
by
men
tors
, w
hic
h e
voke
an
inte
nti
on t
o s
tay f
ort
h.
Hen
ce, it
can
be
assu
med
that
em
plo
yee
s w
ith a
n
acce
ss t
o m
ento
ring a
t
work
pla
ce h
ave
a hig
her
likel
ihood o
f st
ayin
g a
s
com
par
ed t
o n
on
-men
tore
d
emplo
yee
s “(
Nai
m &
Len
ka,
2017
, p. 325).
134
(Chen
g &
Pen
g, 2016, p.
119).
Mutu
al
Dev
elopm
ent
(MD
)
Mutu
al d
evel
opm
ent
is t
he
syner
gis
tic
pow
er o
f th
e
men
tori
ng r
elat
ionsh
ip
whic
h a
llow
s th
e pai
r to
work
coll
abora
tivel
y t
o
achie
ve
more
goal
s,
gen
erat
e m
ore
know
led
ge
and a
cces
s m
ore
res
ourc
es
as a
pai
r th
an t
hey c
ould
indiv
idual
ly.
(Dep
tula
&
Wil
liam
s, 2
017)
Use
this
if
the
quote
is
rela
ted t
o t
he
mutu
al
ben
efit
of
the
men
tor
and
pro
tégé
thro
ugh t
he
rela
tionsh
ip
Do n
ot
use
if
the
quote
refe
rs t
o t
he
succ
ess
of
only
the
men
tor
or
pro
tégé,
rat
her
than
the
pai
r.
“Coll
abora
tion c
om
es f
rom
com
monly
work
ing o
n
each
par
tner
's
dev
elopm
enta
l goal
s an
d
care
er o
bje
ctiv
es”
(Dep
tula
& W
illi
ams
20
17, p. 383)
Per
sonal
lear
nin
g (
PL
)
Per
sonal
lea
rnin
g i
s th
e
pro
tégé
acquir
ing “
the
skil
ls, kn
ow
ledge
or
com
pet
ence
that
contr
ibute
to c
aree
r
outc
om
es”
(Rueyw
ei e
t
al., 2
014, p. 489).
Use
when
the
quote
tal
ks
about
any s
pec
ific
asp
ect
of
tangib
le l
earn
ing, li
ke
trai
nin
g, co
achin
g, se
lf-
lear
nin
g o
f one
on o
ne
skil
ls, tr
yin
g n
ew t
asks
etc.
Do n
ot
use
when
the
quo
te
talk
s ab
out
a le
arnin
g
envir
onm
ent,
or
cult
ure
of
lear
nin
g e
tc.
“the
skil
l dev
elopm
ent
of
the
Tai
wan
ese
emplo
yee
s
who t
ook p
art
in o
ur
study
was
enhan
ced b
y
men
tori
ng”
(Rueyw
ei e
t
al., 2
014, p. 495)
Pro
tege
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
(PS
)
Pro
tégés
th
at a
re s
atis
fied
wit
h t
hei
r m
ento
r an
d t
he
men
tor
exper
ience
. W
elsh
and D
ixon (
2016)
stat
e
that
sat
isfi
ed p
rote
ges
Use
this
when
the
quote
refe
rs t
o t
he
pro
tégé'
s
sati
sfac
tion w
ith t
hei
r
men
tor.
Do n
ot
use
when
the
quo
te
refe
rs t
o t
he
pro
tégé'
s
sati
sfac
tion w
ith t
he
org
aniz
atio
n, or
thei
r jo
b,
but
not
spec
ific
ally
the
“Gen
Y e
mplo
yee
s ex
pec
t
men
tori
ng a
t w
ork
pla
ce,
ther
efore
par
tici
pat
ion i
n
men
tori
ng i
s per
ceiv
ed a
s a
posi
tive
work
ex
per
ience
,
134
alig
n t
hei
r ex
pec
tati
ons
wit
h t
he
pro
vid
ed
support
.)
m
ento
r. D
o n
ot
use
when
the
quote
ref
ers
to t
he
men
tor's
sati
sfac
tion.
whic
h i
n t
urn
, co
ntr
ibute
s
to t
he
feel
ing o
f em
oti
on
al
atta
chm
ent.
” (N
aim
&
Len
ka,
2017, p. 326)
Pro
fess
ion
al
Ex
posu
re
(PX
)
Pro
fess
ional
ex
posu
re i
s
when
the
“vis
ibil
ity o
f th
e
pro
tégé
in t
he
ente
rpri
se”
(Gri
ma,
F., P
aill
é, P
.,
Mej
ia, J.
H., &
Pru
d'h
om
me,
L., 2
014, p.
471)
is i
ncr
ease
d t
hro
ugh
job a
ssig
nm
ents
and
inte
ract
ions
wit
h
infl
uen
cers
.
Bec
ause
nav
igat
ing t
hes
e
inte
ract
ions
and
assi
gnm
ents
succ
essf
ull
y
requir
es p
oli
tica
l sk
ill
(Roger
s, A
., L
uksy
te, A
.,
& S
pit
zmuel
ler,
C. ,2
016),
the
men
tor
nee
ds
to s
har
e
know
ledge
of
pro
cess
es,
peo
ple
and s
yst
ems
(Bry
ant,
2005),
and
pro
vid
e pro
tect
ion f
rom
the
men
tor
to h
elp t
he
pro
tégé
avoid
act
ions
that
may
dam
age
thei
r im
age
and r
eputa
tio
n. (G
rim
a, F
.,
Use
this
when
the
quote
is
in r
elat
ion t
o o
pen
ing n
ew
posi
tions
and i
nfl
uen
ce
from
the
men
tor
rela
tionsh
ip.
Do n
ot
use
when
the
quo
te
refe
rs t
o e
nhan
cing s
kil
ls
wit
h t
he
sam
e co
-wo
rker
s,
or
in t
he
sam
e posi
tion.
“One
reas
on t
he
shad
ow
ing
pro
gra
m w
ork
s is
that
it
giv
es y
ou v
isib
ilit
y i
n
anoth
er p
art
of
the
org
aniz
atio
n.”
(S
rivas
tav
a,
2015, p. 436)
134
Pai
llé,
P., M
ejia
, J.
H., &
Pru
d'h
om
me,
L., 2
014))
top related